Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven O'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Teachers (PRP)

Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on performance-related pay for teachers. [138357]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Further to a report by the School Teachers, Review Body and consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a written answer on 21 November that he had made an order reinstating the performance threshold assessment system. The assessments will lead to a £2,000 pay increase for successful applicants, and they restart today.

Valerie Davey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, as will the many teachers who have applied and those head teachers whose professional time and commitment has been involved. Is she able to assess the impact of threshold payments on teacher recruitment?

Ms Morris: The new pay structure is about recruiting and retaining the best people into the teaching profession, because that is what we need to do. I have every confidence that the threshold assessment, along with a range of other measures, will do exactly that. Earlier this week, we were delighted to announce that the number of people starting teacher training this year has increased by 2,000 on last year—the first increase for eight years. I am sure the House will welcome that. It is key that we have as many good people as possible in teaching, and we have turned the corner on that.

Mr. Richard Allan: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is addressing the conference of the Association of Colleges this morning.
The Minister knows that concerns remain about the performance-related pay scheme, especially as there are fears that the pupil progress targets will be easier to achieve in areas where schools perform well, rather than in those areas lower down the league tables. To allay those fears, will she undertake to publish details of how many teachers are refused payment on the grounds of

insufficient pupil progress and the areas where they come from, so that we can evaluate them? Can she confirm the name of the scheme, as I have press releases from the Secretary of State which refer to performance-related pay and press releases from her which refer to performance-related promotion?

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman might misunderstand pupil progress; teachers do not. We have made it clear that pupil progress will take into account pupils' prior attaintment and their starting point. Good teachers make a difference, and the key way in which they do so is that their pupils progress at least at the rate that we would expect given their starting point. It is right to recognise that—parents know it, teachers know it and students know it. For the first time, we shall have a pay structure that recognises the achievements of many teachers in our classrooms who do not want to take on administration or management, but who are really, really good at raising the standards of the children whom they teach. They will now be rewarded for doing so.
We will not publish the individual results of the teachers who are assessed. That information is to do with them. The feedback will go to them and continuous professional development will follow, so that they can improve and perhaps apply again. In due course, we will publish the number of applicants who have been successful at the threshold.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister comment on the performance of teachers in Slough, which, with a 9 per cent. increase in the number of students who have achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE, comes third in the national improvement league table, just after the Scilly Isles and Rutland? Would she like to tell the GCSE students and their teachers at Langleywood, which is the most improved school in that very much improved town, what she thinks they can do to repeat those successes next year?

Ms Morris: I am delighted to congratulate the teachers, the students and their parents on the improvement in Slough, and, before I get into terrible trouble, I ought to do the same for those in the Isles of Scilly and Rutland. My hon. Friend will know that, without this Government, there would have been no improvement indices. We published not only the raw data—as we should—but data on the improvement, because we expect every school and local education authority to improve on its previous best. That is what parents want. I am delighted to join her in congratulating Slough on its achievement. Indeed, all teachers have a lot to be proud of, not only for achieving the best GCSE results ever, but for being the generation of teachers who have turned round literacy and numeracy, so that the number of 11-year-olds who can now read and write effectively enough to access the second curriculum is the highest ever in the history of testing.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Minister satisfied that those who will carry out the assessments to determine performance-related pay have had sufficient training? Will there be an appeals procedure for those teachers who feel aggrieved that their application is not successful?

Ms Morris: Yes and yes. The person who will make the initial assessment will be the head teacher, helped by


a line manager or head of department. They know the teacher best and they will make a judgment based on the evidence presented by the teacher and on what they know of the teacher's performance. We have always made it clear that we wanted to offer teachers the assurance that, if relationships were not right between the head teacher and an individual teacher, someone would check that national standards were being implemented. That is the role of the assessor, who will visit every school and make sure that the appropriate system is in place.
I am content that head teachers and assessors have been properly trained. As a result of the work carried out by the School Teachers' Review Body, we have introduced a review process that will mean that all teachers can be sure of two things. First and most important, when they pass the assessment, they will know that they have passed well and deserve to be congratulated. They should feel proud. Secondly, if they do not pass, there will be every opportunity for them to seek advice and to ask for a review if they think that that is appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — Educational Needs (New Towns)

Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on his plans to meet educational needs in new towns. [138358]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): The spending review that we completed in the summer shows that the Government plan to meet the educational needs of all children—in new towns and everywhere else in the country.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that pupils in new town schools are making significant progress, because of the efforts of themselves, their parents and their teachers and because of the significant extra money that is now being provided to schools? Does he also agree that there is still a problem of under-achievement? In some cases, that is due to lack of aspiration, and there is the particular problem of under-achievement by boys. Will he therefore consider sympathetically bids for specialist school status that are made by individual schools or groups of schools? That could be part of the solution to the problem, but bids from new towns have not thus far been successful.

Mr. Wills: I agree with all that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been an indefatigable campaigner for schools in new towns. I accept that they are making good progress. His constituency is in Essex, where the number of pupils obtaining five A* to C passes at GCSE increased from 48.6 per cent. in 1998 to 50.8 per cent. this year. That reflects the progress that has been made throughout the country. It is due to the sterling efforts of parents, teachers and pupils and to the efforts of the Government.
Part of the problem is under-achievement by boys and our continuing campaign to drive up standards will focus on that. I confirm that we shall consider sympathetically any bid for specialist school status that meets the criteria.

Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Minister agree that one of the key requirements for meeting educational needs in new towns is the recruitment of

high-quality teachers? That point was made clear in a recent meeting in Essex that was attended by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister's announcement today that the Government want to recruit 300,000 teachers in the next 10 years still fails to meet recruitment targets and would, on current trends, leave our schools short of 50,000 teachers?

Mr. Wills: A number of factors drive up standards in schools. The first is spending, and we are increasing spending by 5.5 per cent. this year, 6 per cent. next year and 5.9 per cent. the year after that. Spending is important, and so are outcomes, which are also improving. As we have heard, literacy and numeracy are at record levels.
Teachers are also critical. The hon. Lady will be aware from many exchanges in the House that teacher recruitment is a long-standing problem that has gone on for at least 20 years. It is not new. What is new, however, is the Government's determination to do something about it—and we are, as she will be aware. We are recruiting more teachers in an incredibly tight labour market. That is the first time that we have been able to do that, and we shall continue to do it. There have been record improvements in the number of graduate initial teacher trainees and we will continue to see the numbers rise. When the Conservative party was in government, it did absolutely nothing to solve the problem—we are.

Oral Answers to Questions — Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. [138359]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The role of Her Majesty's chief inspector is to inspect, report and provide advice underpinned by the evidence of inspection.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does not his dithering over the appointment of a successor to Mr. Woodhead demonstrate that the Secretary of State simply cannot decide whether he is on the side of the handful of Ofsted's critics in the teaching profession or on the side of parents and their kids who want Ofsted to continue the fight for higher standards in our schools?

Mr. Blunkett: I do not remember anyone appointing someone as quickly as I have done. I appointed Mike Tomlinson for a fixed-term contract for the coming year, at his request given the point that he has reached in his career. I am pleased to say that we shall advertise, receive applications and then appoint the best person to draw down on the evidence available and to use that evidence base to evaluate progress and to reveal to us where there is failure, so that, together, we can take action to do something about it.

Mr. Roger Casale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Merton local education authority and the out-going director of education, Jenny Cairns, on the good Ofsted report that they have recently received? Does he agree that, at a time when the Tory Opposition are still running down schools in my



constituency and across the country, having spent years in government running down the finances of schools and the morale of teachers, it is important that we have in Ofsted a strong, independent voice to tell us the real situation, identify the problems that we need to tackle, and give us the chance to get on with raising education standards?

Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate all those who have been working so hard in the borough of Merton to raise standards and continue progress. I was there very recently, as my hon. Friend knows. I agree with him entirely on the definition of the role of Ofsted.

Mr. David Ruffley: Was the Secretary of State very disappointed to see Mr. Woodhead resign as chief inspector?

Mr. Blunkett: I seem to remember answering exactly the same question from John Humphrys on the day after the announcement that the chief inspector was to step down. I give the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer. Chris Woodhead and I have been through a great deal together. Therefore, naturally, having been responsible for his reappointment, I was disappointed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said when Margaret Thatcher was defeated, "Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice"? We say the same now that Chris Woodhead has gone. Apparently, he is going to write for the Tory The Daily Telegraph and join the Tory party, doing a swap with a fellow called William Newton Dunn, who has left the Tories.

Mr. Blunkett: I do remember precisely what we said 10 years ago yesterday.

Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Secretary of State agree that the key roles—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Rejoice!"] I certainly rejoice at the compliment paid to the London borough of Merton, as I chaired its education authority.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the key roles of the chief inspector are to ensure a rigorous, independent inspection regime, maintaining high standards in our schools, as ably shown by Chris Woodhead during his tenure of office? Despite the Secretary of State's protestations, does not his appointment of only an acting chief inspector for a year show the contempt in which he holds Ofsted and his desire to push the decision beyond a general election, in the hope that Labour wins and he can then appoint one of his cronies and emasculate Ofsted as a force for good in our schools?

Mr. Blunkett: When we win the general election, who knows whom the Prime Minister will appoint to the office of Secretary of State?
Let me make it absolutely clear that I of course accept the definition of the role of Ofsted that the hon. Lady has enunciated. Over the past three and a half years, we could not have made our position clearer on rooting out failure, tackling under-achievement, raising standards and providing both pressure and support to do so. The role of

Ofsted is to reveal. Our job, in conjunction with schools and pro-active education authorities, is to raise standards having picked up the evidence.
I do not intend to go into the details of Mike Tomlinson's position, but one thing was absolutely clear: we needed stability in Ofsted. We needed someone who was trusted by teachers, parents, myself and fellow Ministers. We needed someone who could carry us forward in the next year with the absolute certainty that the rigour of Ofsted would continue, that the pressure and support would be balanced fairly and that we would receive the evidence on which we could act to ensure that every child has a decent education.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an irritant is often needed to make a system work? Whatever one thinks of Chris Woodhead he was certainly irritating, and will undoubtedly be so in another capacity. However, he was also a passionate champion of our kids. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ofsted continues to take a rigorous, robust attitude to evaluating the performance of teachers, schools and local education authorities?

Mr. Blunkett: The answer is unequivocally yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Secondary Education (Greater London)

Mr. John Wilkinson: What estimate he has made of the number of schoolchildren in the state secondary education sector who are sent to schools in Greater London outside the local authority in which they live. [138360]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): My Department has not collected that information centrally since the previous Government changed the basis for calculating standard spending assessments. Parents have a right to state a preference for any school, irrespective of the area in which they live. Local education authorities have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places for children in their area, but they should take account of cross-border movement in doing so.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a pity that the hon. Lady's Department does not collect statistics on what is happening? In London, failing schools in Labour-controlled boroughs are causing a mass exodus of pupils into good Conservative-majority boroughs, such as my own in Hillingdon, where foundation schools and Church schools are a magnet. Is not the consequence of the failure of the inner-city schools in those Labour boroughs that parents in my constituency cannot get their children into the local school of their choice? Will the hon. Lady do something about that situation, which is causing great distress and unhappiness to parents who are being penalised for the success of their local schools?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman highlights the challenges for inner-city schools, and I am sure that he will delight in the extra support that the Government have given to London through excellence in cities. He will also delight in the fact that, nationally, results in areas involved in the scheme have improved much faster than in other areas, as


measured by the number of pupils gaining five A* to C grades. It is therefore unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman's party would do away with that excellent scheme.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were petty because they are as relevant to Kensington and Chelsea and to Westminster as they are to Labour-controlled boroughs. There is a problem with secondary schooling in London, and the great crowds of parents trying to get their children into good state secondary schools are testament to that. That is the result of 20 or more years of under-investment, and the Conservative party's only policy is to restore subsidies to private schools for their friends and their class, and to cut public expenditure for other schools.
I ask my hon. Friend not to treat this simply as a party political matter. There is deep concern among many parents in London about the quality and range of secondary schooling in the city, and it must be addressed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right in both parts of his question. That is why I re-emphasise the action that the Government have already taken through excellence in cities, which introduces to London and other inner-city areas access to learning mentors and learning support units, enhanced opportunities for gifted and talented pupils, more beacon and specialist schools, small education zones and city learning centres. As I said, those are demonstrating their influence through improved results.
We are not complacent about standards in secondary schools. That is why this year we are investing in a pilot scheme to improve standards at key stage 3 and, following the successes of teachers and schools in the primary sector, we will maintain pressure and support to ensure that standards improve even further in secondary schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Deal

5. Mr. Joe Ashton: How many employers have signed up to support new deal. [138361]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am delighted to say that more than 79,000 employers have shown their support for the new deal by signing employer agreements.

Mr. Ashton: That is excellent news, and I hope that many other employers, such as small businesses, will join them. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency in north Nottinghamshire, as well as in north Derbyshire and other parts of the midlands, there have recently been hundreds of redundancies in the textile industry? Many of those people are over 50 and are in despair about being made redundant for the first time in their lives, even though their unemployment may be short term. Will my right hon. Friend use the maximum publicity to emphasise to those people that the new deal provides excellent retraining facilities and a guaranteed minimum income of £170 a week, and that 2 million people aged 50 or over are eligible to join?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a staunch advocate of the new deal in his constituency, which has helped employment to rise and unemployment to fall there. We are deeply concerned about the fact that in his and surrounding constituencies, about 6,000 people are facing redundancy. Through the rapid response unit and the new deal for 50-plus, we have to send the message that if people lose their job at 50, their working life is not over.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister confirm that the most recent research undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research, surveying 3,200 employers, shows that 69 per cent. of the jobs that people go into from the new deal would have been created without the new deal? Is that not 9 per cent. more than the Government's previous estimates? Will she also confirm that the survey found that half of those people lost their jobs within nine months? If 69 per cent. would have gained their jobs without the new deal, is it not correct to say that the £800 million that the Government have spent on the new deal for young people works out at a cost per job created of £18,000? Will she confirm that the new deal is a costly and bureaucratic failure?

Ms Jowell: The real deadweight on the new deal is the Opposition's attitude. The new deal is not a job creation programme. Two thirds of the young people interviewed by the National Centre for Social Research survey were still in work after six months. Many of the nine out of 10 people he mentioned have gone on to other jobs, as part of a dynamic labour market. As the Opposition's favourite job in relation to the new deal is to misquote and misrepresent, let me tell the House what the National Centre for Social Research actually found. On subsidised employment, which accounts for 10 per cent. of the new deal,

Employers were mainly satisfied with the way in which the new deal is administered and with the wage subsidy.
The problem is the Opposition and their hypocrisy. They weep crocodile tears about the new deal, but if they ever got power, there would be no new deal.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the excellent work carried out by the Broads authority in employing many young people on the environmental taskforce new deal option, which has given valuable experience to lots of people and resulted in good work for the environment? The Broads authority has employed those people directly; I believe that it is the only national park to do so. May I suggest that the other national parks be encouraged to follow suit, so that the environmental taskforce option achieves further success?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Throughout the country, derelict land, parks and inner cities are being regenerated by young people through the environmental taskforce. He makes an important point: the new deal is not only about getting young people into jobs, but about giving them the skills that will equip them to stay in work for the rest of their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions — Student Enrolments

Sir Sydney Chapman: How many full—time student enrolments there have been in this academic year. [138362]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The most up-to-date information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service shows that the increase in the total number of students, including mature students, accepted for entry to undergraduate courses in the autumn was almost 2 per cent. This year's final figure for full-time students will not be known until January.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Will he say more about whether the decrease in the number of mature students applying has been checked or reversed? Will he confirm that, as a result of the introduction of tuition fees, there has been a huge hike in the number of student loans granted? Is he concerned about that with regard to student debt in future?

Mr. Blunkett: There has, so far, been an increase in the number of full-time mature students, although the figures for part-time mature students, whose number is growing by the year, will not be known until well into next year because such students do not participate in the UCAS system. However, we have introduced new measures to support and help mature students, which will come into force next September. In addition, through opportunity bursaries, we have encouraged those who are in the lower income bracket by ensuring they have £2,000 to support themselves when entering university and buying equipment and books. Of course, the number of students taking out loans has risen—we changed the system to an income-contingent loans system, repayable through the Inland Revenue in future years, when students can afford it. That is the simple reason for the increase.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On the opportunity bursaries bursary scheme, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is he aware of the desperate cry from the university of Central Lancashire that, for some reason that I do not understand, the scheme does not apply in either Lancashire or Cumbria? Has there been a miscalculation? Will my right hon. Friend examine this as a matter of great urgency, as it has been publicised in the north of England?

Mr. Blunkett: The scheme does not apply in the areas to which my hon. Friend has referred because, initially, we are providing it in excellence in cities and education action zone areas. We intend to develop it as a nationwide programme. The resources available to implement the scheme immediately led me to believe that we should target, first and foremost, the core areas that have the greatest problem in attracting and encouraging students to take up university places. The scheme will be combined with the major package of measures, amounting to more than £50 million, that I announced in July. It will target and encourage students throughout the country to take up university places.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The National Union of Students seems to be suggesting that some students are

giving up their courses part way through because of the level of their loan. They may want to return later. Is there any sign that this is happening and that more students are leaving their courses because they have decided that they cannot afford the amount of loan that they are likely to have at the end?

Dr. Evan Harris: Yes.

Mr. Blunkett: The Liberal Democrats tell me that the answer is yes. In fact, the answer is no. The information that the National Union of Students has been using refers, understandably, to available statistics, which referred to the old loan system and the old financing programmes. It is not possible to draw the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. However, there is a challenge. The drop-out rate varies enormously from university to university if we compare like with like—the type of university, the background of students and the history of the university. We need to take on the challenge. There is clearly something amiss when as many as 30 per cent. or more of students in some of our universities are dropping out during their courses.

Dr. George Turner: What is the percentage of full-time students who are having to pay fees? Some commentators suggest that 100 per cent. are having to do so. Am I right in thinking that the percentage is probably about half that? When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to assess the impact of the welcome measures to help part-time students? My experience is that mature students welcome the important part-time opportunity. When will we know whether the scheme is working?

Mr. Blunkett: We will not know whether the scheme is working until it is working. That is the honest answer. I am keen that we evaluate as quickly as possible the new measures that we are taking. We shall obviously report back to the House in due course.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, currently 42 per cent.—from the coming year, 50 per cent.—of full-time students will not pay towards their fees.

Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have failed to meet their targets for increased entry into higher education this year, and that the number of English students in Scottish universities has fallen by 15 per cent? Moreover, applications from state school pupils to Oxford have fallen as a result of the Chancellor's monstrous attack on that university. I am pleased to say that that attack was overwhelmingly rejected by Oxford students earlier this week in an Oxford Union debate, which neither the Chancellor nor any Education Minister was willing to attend to defend their position. Do not the falls in student numbers show that the Government's policies, especially the abolition of the maintenance grant, far from offering opportunities for all, are denying life chances to too many young people?

Mr. Blunkett: The Oxford Union is not a body that Ministers are obliged to attend, although it may have been in the past. Although there has been an increase in applications to Oxford—to which the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service procedures or the clearance


system do not apply—there has been a small drop in the number of applicants from the maintained sector. That has nothing to do with public debates, but it has a lot to do with whether we can target schools and colleges to persuade students to go to Oxford. I am heavily committed to doing precisely that, which is why we are putting resources behind it and working in partnership with the Sutton Trust.
On the broader question, first, there has not been a drop in the number of applications from students in lower income groups and such socio-economic backgrounds. Secondly, over the Conservative Government's last eight years in power, they cut student funding per unit by 36 per cent., so it takes the biscuit for Conservative Members to lecture us when we have announced that we are reversing, for the first time, the unit cost cut. We are putting more money in, opening the doors to more students and investing an extra 11 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. That increase has been welcomed by universities and students alike.

Oral Answers to Questions — Anti-smoking Programmes

Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will assess the impact of anti-smoking programmes in schools in the past 10 years. [138363]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): My Department and the Department of Health have funded a wide range of educational materials for schools on the dangers of smoking. The latest Office for National Statistics survey, entitled "Drug Use, Smoking and Drinking Among Young Teenagers in 1999", showed that regular smoking in the 11-15 age group has decreased since 1996 from 13 per cent. to 9 per cent.

Mr. Flynn: Unfortunately, that is not the answer to my question. Has the Minister noticed that the smokebusters campaign—which was well studied, conducted over four years and intended to decrease smoking among young people—coincided with the largest ever increase in smoking among young women, presumably because of the belief that smoking aids slimming? She referred not to the past 10 years, but only to the recent decrease, which has been explained by the fact that young people are spending more money on mobile phones. We all want to achieve a decrease in addiction and the harm caused by all drugs, legal and illegal, but before we embark on more expensive anti-drug education campaigns, would not it be reasonable to make a real assessment of the effect of such campaigns and of peer pressure and fashion?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to evaluate provision. Although I do not take a defeatist attitude to what our schools are able to achieve in educating young people, which he sometimes does in this respect, I agree that research is important. That is why the Department has agreed to commission a long—term study—a longitudinal study—to consider the impact of drug education policies in our schools. [Interruption.] There is a murmur from Conservative Members. We are commissioning the study because one was not commissioned by the previous Government.
The objectives of the study are to examine the effects of drug education from primary school age through transition to secondary school; to assess knowledge, attitudes and behaviour to age 16; and to investigate the effectiveness of drug education. I also agree with my hon. Friend that a range of issues may influence smoking activity among young people. We put smoking education in a framework for personal, social and health education, which allows schools and pupils to investigate the range of pressures on young people and how they can avoid those pressures. That is very important for achieving further success in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions — FE Lecturers (Pay)

Sandra Gidley: What plans he has to increase rates of pay for lecturers in further education. [138364]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The Government have made an additional £50 million available for further education teachers' pay in 2001–02, in order to improve students' learning through the recruitment, retention and reward of high calibre staff. Representatives of employers and staff are working in consultation with officials from my Department on detailed proposals for the new arrangements. Subject to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State being satisfied that the detailed arrangements proposed will achieve the Government's objectives, we will make available £100 million in 2002–03 and further increased sums in later years.

Sandra Gidley: We welcome the money, but will the Minister confirm that it will be used to address the problem that a lecturer starting in further education currently earns less than schoolteachers at the beginning of their career? Will the Minister also investigate the increasing move to short-term contracts, whereby agreed pay scales do not have to be adhered to?

Mr. Wicks: The extra money is an indication of our good faith. Yes, we do look at comparisons with the school sector, as do those in the further education and sixth-form college sector. That is one of the reasons why we are acting firmly on the matter. We are not merely making available an extra £50 million and further sums in later years; the Government have made a record investment in further education, which will help to enhance the pay and conditions of important staff in those colleges. We are extremely concerned that the employment of agency staff should not be used by colleges to undermine proper employment rights. We are watching that carefully.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I welcome the additional resources that my hon. Friend mentioned. Does he agree that, especially in further education, there is an over-reliance on part-time staff, who are often paid on only an hourly basis for their class contact work, which does not give them fair remuneration for the amount of effort that they put into preparing their work, marking, assessment and the other contributions that they make?

Mr. Wicks: As in all sectors, we should value part-time staff and give them proper opportunities through training.
We are taking training in the sector more and more seriously. I note that inspectors have raised questions about the quality of some—not all—part-time staff. It is important that, as well as teaching on an hourly basis, staff are available to help with pastoral care, so I recognise the importance of the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Bercow: Approximately how many working days have been lost over the past 12 months as a result of strike action by further education lecturers? Given that lecturers' pay rates depend on the overall budget, which in turn depends on numbers, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that an institution that is unable to meet its recruitment target may find not only that it cannot increase pay, but that at least in relative terms it may be obliged to reduce it?

Mr. Wicks: We are concerned to increase the number of our citizens in further education, and we are taking a range of measures to boost numbers. The colleges that are most successful in recruitment will be properly rewarded. The number of days lost through industrial action is extremely small, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the data that we have.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEN Budgets

Mr. Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of LEA special educational needs budgets. [138365]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Individual authorities determine the funding arrangements for their schools, taking account of their statutory duties, including those for pupils with special educational needs. Schools do not account separately for their special educational provision but must, under the Education Act 1996, use their best endeavours to secure suitable special educational provision for any pupil with special educational needs.

Mr. George: I welcome the announcement of the long-overdue additional funds made available to schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, but is the Minister aware that among parents of children with special educational needs in Cornwall, there are growing fears of downward pressure on statementing, support services, and now a threat to the future of the Pencalenick special school? In view of the high levels of special educational need inclusion in Cornwall, can the Minister reassure parents that effective provision will not be jeopardised by an adverse change in the area cost adjustment?

Ms Hodge: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no pressure to reduce the identification of children with special needs. Quite the reverse applies: we are identifying such children's needs earlier. That enables us to intervene appropriately to ensure that they can fulfil their potential.
With regard to the school to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I know that consultation is currently occurring on proposals about changing its intake. As he knows, that is a matter for local decision making and the local

organisation committee. Our policy in principle is that there should be choice for individual parents and inclusion by choice.

Charlotte Atkins: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Staffordshire local education authority on its inclusion project, which seeks to identify and share best practice in order to ensure successful inclusion of special educational needs pupils into mainstream classrooms? The project is led by Caroline Coles, the head teacher of Horton Lodge school, which has become a centre of excellence and runs a groundbreaking training course for mainstream teachers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward for SEN is to work in partnership with both parents and pupils, rather than through the bureaucratic paper chase of statementing used by the previous Government?

Ms Hodge: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those involved in the project in her constituency. It is one of many that we are funding to promote and spread best practice in encouraging inclusion in schools. I agree entirely with her that the best way of ensuring that children with special educational needs fulfil their potential is by working in partnership with parents and schools to achieve that. She will be pleased to know that partnership will be at the centre of the future legislation and the code of practice that will arise out of it. Doing away with paper chases will also be part of the code of practice.

Mr. James Clappison: Given that some people believe that special educational needs are more easily identified and met in smaller classes and this week's news that pupil:teacher ratios in secondary schools are now at their worst since 1975, will the Minister tell us whether class sizes are higher or lower for the important key stage 2 age group than they were in 1979?

Ms Hodge: The answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that organisations such as the National Union of Teachers in Lancashire are anxious about the way in which funding arrangements are being changed for special educational needs? Will she guarantee that provision for special educational needs will remain a major service area and will take into account the anxieties expressed by organisations such as the Lancashire NUT?

Ms Hodge: I reassure my hon. Friend that funding has been not reduced, but massively increased by the Government to meet the needs of children with special needs. The standards fund has achieved a tripling of that budget since the Government came into power and the school access initiative has ensured a tenfold increase in the schools access budget this year. Further increases are planned. By 2003–04, we will be spending £100 million on increasing access to the curriculum and to buildings.
I also assure my hon. Friend that the derogation of funding to schools will, in my view, support the interests of children with special educational needs as there will be more stable funding and greater opportunity to improve staff training.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Bill on special


educational needs that the Government will introduce in the new Session will contain nothing to dilute the individual rights of parents with regard to statementing?

Ms Hodge: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that that will be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — Manufacturing Industry (Training)

10. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What measures his Department has taken to encourage a greater level of training for work in manufacturing industry. [138366]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): We are making good progress with setting up the Learning and Skills Council, which will receive funding of more than £5.5 billion in 2001–02.
The council will work closely with national training organisations, 19 of which are specifically involved in manufacturing. Their strategies include targeted use of a range of initiatives, including foundation and advanced modern apprenticeships and national vocational qualifications

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that reply. Last Friday, I presented an Investors in People award to County Labels, a young, dynamic and successful manufacturing company located in Adelphi Mill, Bollington, in my constituency. Its success is partly based on training and what it describes as career development. The textile and clothing industry strategy group report of June emphasised the importance of improving and formalising training and career development, and stressed the need for universities and colleges to offer appropriate training opportunities. Bearing that in mind, are the Government looking specifically at the needs of manufacturing industry, which is the only source of sustainable non-inflationary economic growth in this country?

Mr. Wills: I congratulate the firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is very good to see firms getting the Investors in People award, which is a valuable recognition of their quality, and I send my compliments to County Labels.
We recognise the importance of training, which, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, was a significant part of the plan that we announced in June to help the industry to restructure. Training is essential to that aim, and we have set up a foresight panel to link the science base to manufacturing. That is fundamental to all our strategies, not only for manufacturing and training, but for the economy as a whole.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend know that although the British aerospace industry has a full order book, it is facing serious skills shortages which may eventually affect the overseas earnings of between £4 billion to £5 billion a year that it makes for Britain? Does he think that our high schools are telling our 16-year-old school leavers about the value of apprenticeships? Will he undertake to start a campaign in our high schools so that teachers tell students that those

apprenticeships are available; otherwise, a great industry may not be able to find the local skilled labour that it needs and may have to recruit elsewhere?

Mr. Wills: We recognise the problem of skills shortages throughout the economy and particularly want to encourage apprenticeships for those students who would find them a valuable and fulfilling step towards work. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an interesting pilot initiative in schools involving computer aided design in computer aided manufacturing—CADCAM—using information and communications technology. That is helping to generate real interest in engineering and we are confident that it will start to bridge the skills gaps to which my hon. Friend referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — Job Transition Service

11. Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on his plans for the new job transition service. [138369]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): As part of the pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor announced his intention to establish a new job transition service, which will focus specifically on providing flexible help to individuals, families and communities facing large-scale redundancy. Between now and the Budget, we will consult widely with employers, employees and all the local partners in order to ensure that the service meets real need.
A number of potential approaches are being piloted by the south Yorkshire taskforce to deal with the redundancies declared by Corns, which I know are a matter of major concern for all constituency Members of Parliament, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Healey: I pay tribute to the support that my right hon. Friend and her Department have given Rotherham in dealing with the massive job cuts announced by Corus and other manufacturing firms. I welcome her commitment to trialling the new job transition service in Rotherham. Will she explain what extra help the new service is likely to bring to the work force and their families, as hundreds of workers now face redundancy at the hands of Corns?

Ms Jowell: The practical elements of the programme will include considerably more intensive help and advice about training and available job opportunities, and will build on the personal adviser model that is now a feature of most of our labour market programmes. The programme will also focus on help for families and the partners of people facing redundancy, and will link with local employers and employers elsewhere who are seeking to recruit for vacancies and meet their skills shortages. The aim is to keep the period in which someone is out of work as short as possible. The programme will provide fast help for individuals and families.

Oral Answers to Questions — Learning and Skills Council

12. Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on the objectives he has set for the Learning and Skills Council. [138370]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the Learning and Skills Council remit letter on 9 November. That sets out our key priorities for the first three years of the council's operation. They include encouraging more young people to stay on in learning, increasing demand for learning among adults, and improving the skills of the work force. We also expect the council to drive up standards in teaching and training.

Mr. Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that colleges of further education have a crucial role in delivering those objectives? Warwickshire college in my constituency is committed to supporting the objectives, and only yesterday signed an agreement with the local education authority on the future provision of post-16 training. What can my hon. Friend do to encourage other partners to follow that example?

Mr. Wicks: I know of the good work at Warwickshire college, and my hon. Friend's support for that institution. I congratulate its staff and students on their excellent work. Under the previous Administration, further education was widely regarded as a Cinderella service. Under this Administration and this Secretary of State, further education has a major and important role to play in the early part of the 21st century. That is why we are funding FE at record levels. We have established the Learning and Skills Council so that further education increasingly responds to the needs of individuals and the demands of the local economy.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister regret the passing of the training and enterprise councils and the positive and high input from businesses in Investors in People and in training generally? Can I assume that the Learning and Skills Council will now be responsible for Investors in People? What input will there be from business at board level?

Mr. Wicks: Many TECs have done excellent work, not least because of the commitment of the business community. For that reason, many people from the TEC community will play a major role in the new local learning and skills councils, some as chairs and some as members of staff. As the Secretary of State has said, most of the chairs of the councils, including the national chair, Bryan Sanderson, come from the business community, as well as 40 per cent. of local members. That in itself shows

our commitment to ensuring that the role of the business community is a major focus in the new order for learning and training.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I have had discussions with my hon. Friend and have written to him about the lack of basic skills among the work force on our rail network. The present chaos on the railways has much to do with the fact that the necessary skills are not available. Does my hon. Friend believe that, if the Government are to reach their 10-year target, the Learning and Skills Council must be deeply involved in urgently providing the training and skills required to give us a modern railway system for the 21st century?

Mr. Wicks: I certainly recognise that training must play a full part if we are to achieve a modern rail industry that our economy and passengers desperately need. I know of my hon. Friend's keen interest, hence his letter to me. Yesterday, I took an initiative to boost training in the rail industry, and I shall send him full details of that initiative later today.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Care

Ms Joan Ryan: How many extra child care places have been created since the introduction of the national child care strategy; and if he will make a statement. [138372]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Almost 250,000 new child care places have been created since 1997, providing care for nearly 450,000 children. That is three and a half times the number of child care places that were created during the 18 long and wasted years when the Conservative party was in office.

Ms Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and for visiting the early years development partnership in Enfield last week. She will be aware from that visit of how pleased we are to welcome the new child care places in Enfield as a result of the national child care strategy, and how needed those places were. During her visit, we were given a demonstration of an excellent database on the early years development partnership website for anyone who wants to work in child care. It showed the wide range of job opportunities and the training and qualifications required. Are any mechanisms in place or has her Department taken any action to enable early years development partnerships to share good practice up and down the country?

Ms Hodge: I was incredibly impressed by all the aspects I saw of the work undertaken by the partnership in Enfield. I was particularly impressed by the nursery provision facilitated by our funding, and the work for children with special educational needs.
The website providing information about qualification routes for those interested in careers in child care was extremely impressive. We are considering ways of ensuring that that good practice is spread elsewhere.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please tell us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Consideration of a timetable motion relating to the Freedom of Information Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill.
TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 NOVEMBER—Consideration of a timetable motion relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the Disqualifications Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
THURSDAY 30 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Disqualifications Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.
If no further messages are expected, the House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
FRIDAY 1 DECEMBER—The House will consider any Lords amendments which may be received if further messages are still expected.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
The House may also be asked at any time during the week to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas recess at the end of business on Thursday 21 December, and return on Monday 8 January.

Mrs. Browning: I assume that we shall hear a further announcement, as next week will obviously be declared national guillotine week.
The Leader of the House must realise the importance of the three major Bills that will be returning from another place next week. The Government, however, seek to curtail proper scrutiny and debate. For instance, on the Freedom of Information Bill—much trumpeted by the Government before they came to office—they have totally capitulated, aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats. What we shall receive in the House next week has less strength than the much-criticised 1994 code of practice introduced by the Conservative Government. It is outrageous that such a Bill should be guillotined on the Floor of the House.
The same applies to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, a third of which was changed in the House of Lords. The House of Commons has not even

considered a third of that Bill, yet debate and scrutiny is again to be curtailed. This is not democracy by anyone's standards.
Let me tell the Leader of the House that, having imposed on the House the necessity, following the Queen's Speech, for yet more programming of all Government legislation, the Government will have to do a lot better than this if they are to persuade the official Opposition that their new proposals for timetabling and programming of Bills have anything to do with the word "democracy".
Last week I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on the NHS national plan. That too is something that the Government have paraded publicly, but not on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Lady responded by suggesting that I should have mentioned the additional funds being made available to my health authority.
If the right hon. Lady allocates time for a debate on health expenditure in the south-west, I for one shall be very pleased to participate. We now have no neurosurgery beds in the south-west, and the state of cardiac care at Derriford hospital is such that people with life-threatening cardiac conditions are dying rather than being treated. Moreover—for the first time in my experience as a Member of Parliament—my office has been telephoned by a woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer, but who, after a month, has still not been given a date for an operation.
If the right hon. Lady wants to discuss that, we will be pleased to do so, but, again, given the fact that the British Medical Association this week said that the NHS national plan is unworkable because there are simply not enough general practitioners, and given the constituency postbags, which have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the abolition of community health councils, I hope that she will find time for the House to debate not just yet more recycling of Government expenditure plans, but what is happening to people out there waiting for urgent treatment.
When will the Commons debate the age of consent legislation? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Government do not intend to use the Parliament Acts before the remaining stages have been completed either in another place or in the Commons?
On some unfinished business from last week, I told the right hon. Lady how concerned we were about the many consultations that the Government have started but failed to respond to. She replied that she thought I was asking for more legislation; I am not. When the Government start a consultation and people from all corners of the country with a special interest in that consultation take the time to respond, the least that they can expect is for the Government to make those findings known, or to respond formally to the consultation.
So far, we have outstanding the reply on the Mental Health Act 1983 consultation, begun in November 1999—replies were required by 31 March. Consultation finished on directors pay in July 1999, but there has been no reply from the Government. Nor have the Government responded to UK Sport's paper on nandrolone in athletics; to the consultation on mergers, which finished on 6 August 1999; to the employment agencies consultation, which finished in September 1999; to the public sector ombudsman consultation, for which replies were required


by 29 September 2000; to the voluntary aided schools consultation, which finished on 15 September 2000; to the modern apprenticeships consultation; or to the report on the universal bank. Interestingly, the closing date for a Cabinet Office consultation on the procedure for Government in conducting written consultations was July 2000 and we still have not had a reply on that. That is just a sample; there is more to come.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady made much of the outrage about the undemocratic approach of the Government in seeking to guillotine two Bills at once. She will recall, I am sure, that guillotining is not unprecedented. In fact, she must recall that because, on 14 December 1993, she voted for the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill to be guillotined together, as did the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), all of whom I see in the Chamber.
Also, that in itself was not unprecedented. Two Bills were guillotined on 26 October 1989, on 8 November 1989 and on 11 November 1989. I will not bore the House with any more lists. I simply make the point that the Opposition object to our doing that. It is perfectly reasonable that they should do so, but unfortunately they set the precedent and they cannot really object to our using it.
I refer to the words of one of my distinguished predecessors, now Lord Howe, who said:
I shall, therefore, leave it to the Opposition to use dramatic and bloody metaphors about guillotines and slaughter. I shall continue to refer to this elegant motion correctly, as a timetable motion, which is absolutely necessary to dispose of the remaining business in a reasonable way.—[Official Report, 8 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 1003.]
That deals with the matter of guillotines. The hon. Lady said that we will have to do a lot better than this, but they will have to do a lot better than that if they are to convince me that we should not continue with a procedure that they invented.
The hon. Lady also asked for a debate on the health service national plan. I did not suggest that such a debate was not desirable or, indeed, that one might not be held. She said that she would be delighted by such a debate because of all the beds that are not available in her area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health might well argue that he, too, would be delighted by a debate, which would give him an opportunity to remind her of the 40,000 acute beds that were closed by the Conservative Government. We are still dealing with the consequences of that action—[Interruption.] Yes, I am coming on to the issue of whether there are enough general practitioners to make the national plan workable.
Under the previous Government, we saw cuts in the number of training places for nurses, doctors and all the other health professionals. This Government are determined to provide sufficient general practitioners so that the reasonable standards of service which are set out in the national plan and which patients should be able to expect can be delivered.
If, however, there are difficulties in delivering those standards and there are not enough GPs, it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to start laying the

blame with the Government. It is perfectly clear, given the fact that it takes seven years to train a doctor, that the fault lies with them and not with us.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of the age of consent. I am sure that she has not forgotten that it has already been debated in this place on three occasions. I cannot give her the confirmation that she seeks. Indeed, it would be wrong of me to do so. First, it is a matter for Mr. Speaker to certify when or if it is considered that legislation has been rejected in the House of Lords. Secondly, of course, what we cannot have in this country is a repeat of something that we see occasionally elsewhere, which is that simply by not discussing legislation it can be withheld. So, it has to be within our power to make decisions.
The hon. Lady then gave a long list of consultations to which she sought replies. I think that last week she referred to the consultation on licensing. She will know, I hope, that there are 1,200 responses to that consultation, and it is not only natural but highly desirable that the Government take adequate time to consider them. I anticipate a Government reply to that consultation soon.
As for the other issues that the hon. Lady raised, some of them are under discussion and consideration. Many such consultations lead directly into policy, and occasionally into legislation, as opposed only to a formal reply. Nevertheless, I take on board the point that she makes. I should have thought, however, that she would welcome the fact that the Government consult and pay heed to the responses to consultation. If the Government whom she served had done that more often, they might not have ended up in the mess that they did.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Following publication last week of the urban White Paper, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on regeneration moneys, particularly to highlight the fact that much of the regeneration money is targeted on inner cities and that, sometimes, areas such as mine in suburbia, which contain small pockets of deprivation, miss out? We need an important debate to ensure that, like inner-city areas, those areas receive the money that they need to regenerate themselves.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and I know that it is an issue on which he has campaigned, not least for the area of Netherfield in his Gedling constituency. However, although he makes a very strong point about the need to explore how that money can best be used to regenerate areas that still have considerable difficulties, I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on it in the near future. May I, however, recommend Westminster Hall to him?

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House accept that guillotines, particularly four guillotines in one week, are effectively a confession of failure? Will she say whether any attempt was made to seek the agreement of the Opposition parties to a programme motion for any of those four Bills? Will she say when she expects business to be completed on those nights next week? Will it simply be 10 o'clock, or will she be prepared to go further? Will she also say whether she really believes that it is necessary for guillotines to be so unspecific and therefore so ineffective in giving Opposition Members proper time to test the Government's intention?
What are the Leader of the House's intentions for the next Session? Will she say whether it is her intention, after the Queen's Speech, to implement the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee for an informal mechanism so that the Opposition can be fully involved in discussing the priorities and programming for legislation beyond the Queen's Speech? Will she say why rumours are already circulating in the House of Lords that it will have various Second Readings, and why that has not been the subject of consultation with the Opposition?
Will the mechanism that the Leader of the House intends to establish, and to which she referred in the debate on 7 November, involve Members of both Houses, so that we can ensure that the best route is used for each House, and that next year we do not have this ludicrous legislative logjam?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not accept that guillotines are uniquely a confession of failure. They are simply a mechanism that successive Governments have found it necessary to use, especially at the end of a parliamentary session, to ensure timely consideration of matters that remain outstanding.
I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman was referring when he said that he wished we could be more specific. We have specifically indicated which Bills will be taken on which day. On the question of timing, we shall seek to provide sufficient time, and that matter is still under discussion through the usual channels. I can confirm that the Government have every intention of implementing the informal consultation to which the Modernisation Committee set its hand, after the Queen's Speech. I can assure him that any rumours that he may have heard from the House of Lords are ill-founded. Final decisions have not been made about which legislation will start in which House.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Can we find time in the near future for a debate on the appalling proposal for a landfill site at Buck Park quarry in Denholme in my constituency? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the planning application being refused, the local Conservative council let down residents extremely badly by failing to defend that rejection at the public inquiry?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand the concern felt by his constituents and others in the locality if they feel that the Conservative council is not reflecting the wishes of local people. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate in the House on the matter, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will find ways of pursuing it.

Sir George Young: The Leader of the House announced Commons consideration of Lords amendments on the first three days of next week. Will she tell the House whether, before we begin to consider those Bills, there are likely to be Government statements on The Hague summit on climate change and on the rural White Paper? Will she confirm that there are likely to be 118 Lords amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill, 280 amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, and 700 amendments to the casually

drafted Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill? Will she assure the House that we shall have the opportunity to discharge our responsibilities of scrutiny, and that there will be adequate opportunity to consider all those amendments?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is not usual to give clear confirmation about what statements there may be. The Government are certainly mindful of the impact of statements on other business, but I cannot at this moment say with any certainty what statements will be made.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that a substantial number of amendments have been tabled to the Bills.

Mr. Eric Forth: How many?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot immediately say precisely how many. I shall, however, refer again to the words of my noble and distinguished predecessor, Lord Howe, who said:
Of course, there have been a large number of amendments to the Bill. That is not surprising: it is a major piece of legislation.—[Official Report, 8 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 1004.]
I fear that, yet again, the Opposition are complaining about something that they instituted.

Angela Smith: Can we have a debate on the high cost of public transport for young people under 18? Many of us welcome the Government's proposal in the Transport Bill to give elderly people a free bus pass for half-price travel. However, many young people in my constituency, through our youth forum and through questionnaires that they have returned to me, have highlighted the fact that such concessions are not available to young people. Is it not time that we debated this important issue?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning in her locality on this subject, and I can understand her concern. It is my understanding that local authorities have some discretion in this matter, although I recognise that authorities have discretions that they do not always find room to operate. Although my hon. Friend makes a strong point, I must recommend to her the usual mechanisms, such as Westminster Hall, as I fear that I cannot offer to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On the Bill dealing with the age of consent, do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bit rich of the Leader of the House to try to pass the buck to you by saying that the matter resides with you? Given that more than 70 per cent. of electors in the Prime Minister's own constituency oppose the measure, would it not be a constitutional outrage to seek to use the Parliament Acts on a matter of conscience when a revised upper House has passed a number of amendments to the Bill? I understand that the Government are not even going to pursue those amendments in the upper House, let alone give this House an opportunity to consider them. Would it


not be a complete contempt of Parliament if amendments passed in the other place were not to be considered in this House before the Parliament Acts were invoked?

Mrs. Beckett: I was not passing the buck at all. I was simply making it clear that I am not attempting to prejudge a decision that is not for me, and I think that the House would accept that.
As for the claim that it would be outrageous and unprecedented to use the Parliament Acts on a matter of conscience that had been the subject of a free vote, I remind the hon. Gentleman—because Opposition Members' memories are so defective—of the War Crimes Bill

Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent research from Canada shows that the effect of parenting style and the quality of parenting on children's behaviour and their academic success at school in later years is more major even than that of income? In the light of that research, will she find time for an early debate on expanding measures to help and support parents? Such measures include the sure start initiative that works with disadvantaged parents in my constituency, and the new parent education guidance for schools, which will introduce parent education for every pupil in the school curriculum.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Like him, I am fortunate enough to have one of the sure start pilots in my constituency, and I strongly welcome it. For various reasons, a few years ago I had cause to study issues to do with child abuse. I am therefore very mindful indeed of how inadequate some people's parenting skills are and of how little opportunity there is to produce good parenting education.
I strongly sympathise with the concern identified by my hon. Friend, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House. However, I think that Westminster Hall is perhaps the natural forum for such a debate.

Sir John Stanley: I return to the matter raised last week by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Is the right hon. Lady aware that it was the unanimous recommendation of the four Select Committees of this House that make up the quadripartite Committee that there should be a new system of parliamentary scrutiny of arms export licence applications, and that it should begin at the start of the next Session? Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the four Secretaries of State involved fail to make a response to the quadripartite Committee's report by the time the House prorogues at the end of next week, they will be in serious breach of their obligations to Select Committees?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not accept that at all. That the four Select Committees should have made such a recommendation is one important matter, but also important is the fact that the recommendation itself is very serious and far reaching. The House would be right to expect the Government to take that recommendation seriously and to give it full and serious consideration.
However, Select Committees recommend many things, and this one is not the easiest to implement. The right hon. Gentleman asks that a response be made to the

recommendation that procedures be established to allow prior scrutiny of arms export licence applications before the next Session of Parliament begins. However, the next Session begins in only 10 days' time, and my memory tells me that something like 6,000 export licence applications are involved. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be unfair if he were to suggest that the Government were not taking the matter seriously. We are, and I am sure that a proper response will be made when the issue has been considered fully.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend make some time available for a debate on the manufacturing industry? About 800 jobs have been lost on Teesside, and the steel industry is a fundamental requirement for our manufacturing base. I have raised this matter with her a few times before, so will she give it some serious thought?

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly will. I recognise, as does my hon. Friend, that although the number of manufacturing jobs being lost pales into insignificance beside the number lost under the Conservative party, that is no consolation to those whose jobs are at risk; nor is it any consolation to know that there is restructuring in the steel industry across Europe. Although I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on manufacturing industry at this time, I remind my hon. Friend that we have Trade and Industry Question Time on 30 November.

Mr. Roger Gale: Shortly before the summer recess, the Select Committee on Broadcasting published its report on the future televising of the House of Commons. The House authorities are shortly to go out to tender for a new contract to operate the televising of the House. We have discussed much of the future modernisation of the House, yet most of the British people still cannot see the House of Commons on terrestrial television, and virtually none of the work of Standing Committees is available either on television or on the internet. Before we go out to tender, could we please have time allotted on the Floor of the House—not in Westminster Hall—so that the whole House can discuss the report and decide what it wants to do about this extension of democracy?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I accept. However, he will recognise that were this to be debated in Westminster Hall, any Member could attend, so a debate there would not confine attendance or participation. It is never easy to find time at this end of the parliamentary year and I cannot give him an assurance that I will find time for the debate that he seeks, but I take his point on board and will give it further thought.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a few weeks ago I called for an investigation into the Short money and the fact that the Tories had received more than £3 million from the taxpayer as a result of the Government's generosity? That is public money. Newspaper reports in the past three or four weeks have suggested that instead of being used for parliamentary Tory party purposes in this building, the money is being transferred to Conservative central office. There was a report in the press last week suggesting that


the Tories were so embarrassed that they would send the money back to the taxpayer. Has the money been received? If not, there is a need for an investigation and a statement on how the Tories are fiddling more than £3 million of public money.

Mrs. Beckett: Well, my hon. Friend makes a point about issues that emerged from an examination by one of the Select Committees. I find myself in some difficulty—[Interruption.] Not in as much difficulty as Conservative Members—I should not laugh too soon if I were them. I take the view that the Select Committees of this House are appointed to scrutinise the work of Government. I am reluctant to become drawn into anything that impinges on the work of the Opposition. Equally, I understand my hon. Friend's concern if it is suggested that in some way the money that is made available from the taxpayer is being misused.
I feel quite confident in saying that no money has been returned; and considering that the Conservative party has never sent back the money that it had from Asil Nadir, I should not expect it if I were my hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on the NHS plan to explore why the Government have rejected the royal commission's proposals that personal care should be free? As a result, dementia sufferers and many other people with chronic illnesses will continue to be pursued by debt collectors and forced to sell their homes—something that the Prime Minister assured us would never happen under a Labour Government.

Mrs. Beckett: What the Prime Minister assured the hon. Gentleman and his constituents was that a Labour Government would find ways of putting in place the support systems needed to assist people in those difficult circumstances. I did not say that there would not be a debate on the NHS plan, merely that I am not in a position to find time for one at present.

Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will know of the increased protection for wetlands and sites of special scientific interest announced recently by our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. That issue is extremely relevant to my constituency, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has just saved Rainham marsh from development for future generations. May we have a debate on environmental protection in the near future?

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the result to which my hon. Friend refers; it is yet another example of the good work carried out by the RSPB and others. I am sure that his constituents will welcome both it and the role that he played in the campaign. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter, but my hon. Friend may be able to find time to contribute to tomorrow's debate on the Environment Agency.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: About three weeks ago, the right hon. Lady informed me that the number of amendments moved by the Government in the House of Lords during this Session was more than 3,800.
Since then it appears that the number will probably rise to 5,000. That is a remarkable statement of incompetence in the drafting of Government legislation. Before the right hon. Lady seeks refuge in a quotation from 17 years ago, will she confirm that she is actually telling the House that, no matter how incompetently she and her predecessors may have behaved, there is absolutely no hope of improvement? Will she make a statement that in the next Session the Government might do a little better?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the figure that the hon. Gentleman quotes, nor indeed am I going back 17 years—but a mere 11. I have not checked the record, but, I suspect that if I were to do so, I should find that the hon. Gentleman, too, voted for all the guillotines that he and others now condemn.
As for there being no hope of improvement, I certainly accept that, in the 1970s, it was unusual for there to be large numbers of Government amendments, although, obviously, all Governments amend legislation in response to representations made to them during the passage of Bills—that is why the House scrutinises legislation. We did get into a way of working that meant large numbers of Government amendments. It happened under Lady Thatcher and has always been a cause of some concern to me. As to whether there is hope for improvement, I am not a believer in empty words; I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, "Wait and see."

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not utterly disgraceful that, at this very moment, machinery is being crated up at Biwater at Clay Cross to be sent out to India so that the whole plant can be transferred there? Not only is that causing the loss of 700 jobs at Clay Cross, but in time it will affect Stanton near Ilkeston and the foundry at Staveley in my constituency. Surely, the House of Commons should not stand idly by while that is taking place, but should hold a debate on early-day motion 1084.
[That this House finds it to be totally unacceptable that the French-based multi-national company Saint-Gobain should have acquired the shares of Biwater (Clay Cross) Ltd for the immediate purpose of closing the plant; is deeply concerned that this will lead to the loss of 700 jobs and the devastation of the local community; is aware that Saint-Gobain's objectives in moving to close the plant are (a) to destroy the pipe manufacturing capacity of a key rival, especially in international markets, (b) to capture Biwater's extensive and growing order book, essentially for transfer to overseas companies and (c) to transfer and asset strip the plant's machinery; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the closure by making full and effective use of powers available to him under the Fair Trading Act 1973, which includes the possibility of setting up an immediate inquiry into the take-over by the Competition Commission and halting all moves to close the plant while the Commission undertakes an in-depth investigation which it is believed will lead to the saving of the plant and the condemnation of Saint-Gobain's actions.]
In addition, we should discuss what is happening in relation to India.

Mrs. Beckett: I and the whole House recognise the long and vigorous campaign that my hon. Friend has waged on behalf of his constituents. In that sense, I do not think that the House can be accused of standing


idly by—my hon. Friend has made extensive use of the opportunities available to Back Benchers to make his concerns known on behalf of his constituents.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have not stood idly by either. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken his representations very seriously and has explored the matter thoroughly. My hon. Friend will also be aware, however, that the Director General of Fair Trading advised my right hon. Friend that he—the director general—was not in a position to refer the merger. Following my hon. Friend's representations, the matter was re-examined, but the advice was that even the fresh information that had been made available did not justify reopening the case or changing the previous advice. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend has agreed to abide by the director general's advice—there are many precedents for that.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Has the irony struck the Leader of the House that the as yet only partially reformed ancien regime in the other House is allowed infinite time to generate 1,000 amendments on three Bills, while this lower, elected Chamber is subjected to the privations of Robespierre when we come to discuss those same 1,000 amendments?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that irony is the word. The right hon. Gentleman's question perhaps casts light on the different management of affairs in the House of Lords, but it has always been the practice in this country that the Government expect to get their legislation—as we do—and it has increasingly been the practice that we seek to manage our business in this Chamber more effectively. Whether those in another Chamber seek to do so is a matter for them.

Dr. George Turner: Do the Government accept that if they are to deliver the urban regeneration referred to in the White Paper, they will have to address—probably by legislation—the balance of power that exists between developers and the communities for whom they are developing? I raise that issue because of the intense anger and frustration in my constituency at the latest breakdown between the lead developer, Threadneedle, and the third party involved. That follows years of delays in rebuilding the shopping centre that needs to be rebuilt for my constituents, yet Threadneedle can exclude the borough council that represents them from what is going on with the third parties involved. Is there not a real need for the community to have a greater say in what is happening to its shopping centre in King's Lynn? No doubt that is happening elsewhere. Will the Government consider whether we need to change the law to ensure responsible behaviour and more openness from developers?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the balance of power. He will know that the purpose of the urban White Paper is to try to place people at the centre of such decisions. Although I understand the importance of the case that he is making, I shall, for once, take the advice of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and recommend that he seek a debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 850, which calls on the Government to reduce VAT on incontinence products, and to the fact that 128 right hon. and hon. Members support it.
[That this House welcomes the proposal announced in the Budget to lower VAT on women's sanitary products to 5 per cent. from 1st January 2001; agrees that women's sanitary products are not luxury consumer products; notes that continence products also classify as sanitary products and are not luxury consumer products; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to ensure that their definition of sanitary products will allow for the lowering of VAT to 5 per cent. on continence products, which are required, according to Government estimates in Good Practice in Continence Services, by up to 20 per cent. of the female population aged under 65 years, 40 per cent. of women aged over 65 years and between 7 to 10 per cent. of men aged over 65 years.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that a Standing Committee is meeting today to approve a reduction in the VAT on women's sanitary products to 5 per cent., but the order that will implement that measure does not provide for a similar reduction in VAT on incontinence pads. Although there is provision for the users of incontinence pads to reclaim the 17.5 per cent. VAT, they find that difficult and end up paying 17.5 per cent. more than they should. Will the right hon. Lady find time to debate that matter further so that VAT on incontinence pads will either be zero-rated or reduced to 5 per cent.—the rate imposed on women's sanitary products?

Mrs. Beckett: I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that incontinence products purchased through the NHS, or by people living in their own homes, are zero-rated. I take his point entirely: it is difficult for people to reclaim that VAT, which is why he requests a zero rate. Nevertheless, I hope he will be aware that it is not now open to the Government to zero-rate a product that is already subject to a positive VAT rate. Of course it is sometimes possible to alter the rate, but the mechanism to which he refers and the difficulty that people have in reclaiming such payments would still exist. I will certainly draw his remarks about the different rates of VAT to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I fear that, as a result of an agreement made by the previous Government, it is not open to this Government to zero-rate those products.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate on the disastrous operations of Railtrack? If my right hon. Friend is able to oblige, will she write to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to field in the debate the Conservative party's chief spokesman on transport and the regions, who happens to have been a director of Railtrack during the years when it failed to invest in Britain's rail network, and who is in many ways culpable for the disaster?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right to say that it would be right and proper for the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) to take part in such a debate. Although I understand the indignation of my hon. Friend and of all our constituents about the


current operation of Railtrack, I fear that I cannot undertake to find special time for a debate. Westminster Hall is available, but he may find that other opportunities will arise, and I am sure that he will take them.

Mr. John Redwood: May we have an early statement or debate on this Government's decision to close more than 500 acute hospital beds over the past year and to preside over the closure of more than 15,000 nursing home places? As we did not have enough beds last winter, why have the Government taken the callous decision to close more? I do not want a history lesson; I want to know about this Government and why they are making the problem worse.

Mrs. Beckett: I might have tried to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's question more seriously, but he has told me that he does not want a history lesson, so all I can tell him is that because, in 1997, we were still hearing about the record of the previous Labour Government in 1974, he cannot expect to be let off the hook for another 20 years at least.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: May I press the Leader of the House on when we will have a statement on the publication of the rural White Paper? Last week, when the Deputy Prime Minister was sitting next to her, she assured us that he had always intended the urban and rural White Papers to be published separately. However, on 19 April he gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The Chairman asked:
You will be looking to publish the two at the same time?
The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
Yes, I think it would be unfortunate and misinterpreted if you produced one and not the other. People would say you were giving preference to one rather than the other.
Many Members representing both urban and rural constituencies are concerned that the Government appear to be informed only by an urban agenda.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps there has been a slight misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. Whatever the exact words that my right hon. Friend used, he always envisaged that the two White Papers would be published at about the same time—I do not think he ever seriously envisaged that they would be published on the same day, because then one would clearly not be able to examine both.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, my right hon. Friend was here last week, when he told me that it was never the intention to publish the White Papers on the same day. However, it is his intention to publish the rural White Paper soon.

Mr. Stephen Day: Given the unprecedented regularity with which the Government introduce guillotines; given the fact that the Prime Minister's initiative on a European army was never brought before the House; and given the fact that Ministers regularly brief the press before they brief the House, would it not save

the taxpayer an awful lot of money if the right hon. Lady were to go into town to buy a sign to hang on the door that simply said "Closed"?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has a list of givens, but, unfortunately, none of them are given. It is nonsense to suggest that the proposals that were discussed yesterday were not brought before the House. They have been brought before the House repeatedly, not least originally by Lady Thatcher and then by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is also nonsense to talk about the unprecedented use of guillotines by this Government. I know that it is uncomfortable for Conservative Members—

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is not.

Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Lady will therefore welcome the news that under the Government whom she supported in the 1987 Parliament, we had the maximum number of guillotines ever seen. Twenty-seven Bills were guillotined; we have not reached that number yet.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady will know that a commitment has been made of United Kingdom troops to the European rapid reaction force without the Government having obtained or, indeed, sought the consent of the House. Surely, in a democracy, the consent of Parliament should be secured for such a major strategic decision. Should not the right hon. Lady reorganise the business for next week, so that the House can be given the opportunity on a substantive motion to consider the commitment of British troops to the European rapid reaction force and so that we can give our consent or withhold it?

Mrs. Beckett: I have seldom heard such rubbish. I am becoming singularly tired of right hon. Members, in particular, in the Conservative party denouncing as a constitutional outrage this Government's exercising of the powers that every previous Government have had.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The right hon. Lady will recall that it is more than a year since the European Commission, no less, produced a report expressing its concerns that much of French meat production was contaminated by human sewage. Bearing in mind that the case for a ban on French meat was compelling then and that it is even more compelling now, would it not be a good idea to have a debate so that we could examine why Ministers are much harsher on British farmers than they have been on French farmers? It would also enable us to explore why the Government think that they are discharging their duties by fawning on our so-called partners in Europe at the expense of public safety at home.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is ill-founded. The Government have stringent provisions to ensure the safety of British beef. We are not responsible for the administration of the French beef regime, although we continue to press the French Government to give us full information. The Food Standards Agency has demanded to know details of procedures adopted in


France. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman what I would to any other hon. Member who raised such a matter: in Britain, we have the most stringent and sound protection of health, and if people want to eat beef, they should eat British beef.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Just under a year ago, early-day motion 175 was tabled. It calls for a national framework for services for disabled people and has now been signed by 195 Members.
[That this House is concerned by the inconsistencies in the provision of equipment to disabled people; notes the positive work done by the disability charity consortium emPOWER in highlighting the importance and needs of users; also notes the Equipped for Equality report which revealed that 76 per cent. of disabled users surveyed experienced problems with equipment, that one in two had problems with the assessment process, and yet 39 per cent. could not manage without their equipment; welcomes the Government's commitment to introduce one new national service framework each year; and calls upon the Government to develop a national service framework for disablement services to set national standards and define service models for equipment for disabled people.]
I welcome the steps that have been taken to help folk with disabilities, but could we have an early debate so that the Government might set forth their plan for such a national service?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's long concern about and interest in the matter. He will know that a rolling programme along those lines was launched in April 1998. The Government continue to work on those issues. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but recommend to him use of debates in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House has announced the suffocation of debate in the House of Commons next week through four guillotines in order to protect the Government's programme from the shambles into which it has fallen. I am not asking her to tell us exactly how many amendments will be tabled next week, but could she estimate the order of magnitude—to the nearest 500, let us say? Could she then estimate the amount of time that the suffocating guillotines will allow the House of Commons to consider those amendments? Could she divide one by the other and give us some idea of how much time the Government think the House of Commons should have properly to consider each amendment from another place?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the suffocation of debate. He will know that none of this is unprecedented. I have a list here of the many different guillotines for which the right hon. Gentleman voted.
Indeed, during consideration of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, he, as Education Minister, moved the guillotine motion. I know that he perfectly properly takes the view that, as he said earlier, that was then and this is now, and that he feels that he has every ground, in opposition, to apply different standards, but I am afraid that the Government will apply the same standards.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that there was no opportunity to highlight the matter during this morning's Education and Employment questions, will the right hon. Lady please find time for an early debate in Government time on the quality of teacher training? Does she agree that that would provide an admirable opportunity for the House to pronounce its verdict on the views of Kimberley, Meek and Miller, three of this country's prominent teacher training academics who specialise in the teaching of reading? They are recently on the record as saying:
Within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out and children must therefore learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts.
Is it not precisely such egalitarian drivel that has so much damaged the educational opportunities of a generation of children?

Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having not only learned but remembered that complicated description. As he knows, the Government take great interest in improvements in teacher training. We are certainly endeavouring to facilitate that. We are also very much encouraged by the greater number of people who are undertaking teacher training, and will continue to try to raise standards in that arena of education, as we are already in our schools.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House will be aware of the devastation caused by the continuing flooding in Vale of York. When the Deputy Prime Minister returns from Holland and his tour of the Dutch dykes, will the right hon. Lady allow time for a full debate, in Government time, on the recommendations of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on planning policy guidance 25? That says that local authorities do not have to follow the Environment Agency's recommendations, and we must ensure that those recommendations are binding.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to offer the hon. Lady time for the special debate that she seeks, although I entirely accept her important point. Apart from the number of places where people are distressed about having been flooded, a noticeable feature of much of the reporting on the floods was the number of places where floodworks have been held up or rejected because of objections of local residents. There is a debate on the Environment Agency tomorrow, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will find an opportunity to raise the issues then or on another occasion.

European Affairs

[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 21st November, HC 68-iii; Memorandum laid before the European Scrutiny Committee containing the Government's response to the Committee's Seventeenth Report, Session 1999–2000, on the 2000 Inter-Governmental Conference (available from the Vote Office); White Paper, Developments in the European Union, January—June 2000, Cm 4922.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that I have set a limit of 15 minutes for Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you like to reassess the time limit on speeches that you have just announced in light of the fact that there is almost no one on the Government Benches, so you may well be under-subscribed with Members wanting to speak? Would you be prepared to relax your time limit for Members on the packed Opposition Benches, so that they could then make longer speeches to compensate for the complete lack of Government Members?

Mr. Speaker: I have never found a shortage of hon. Members wanting to speak on these matters.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Before I start, I apologise to the House for the fact that I must leave for the Zagreb summit after the opening speeches.

Mr. Forth: Oh!

Mr. Cook: I should have thought that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman, everybody in the House would wish success to a summit that brings together the countries of Europe and the western Balkans, including, for the first time, a democratic Serbia.
Only a year ago, both Croatia and Yugoslavia were still led by two Presidents who had presided over the wars between Croats and Serbs in Croatia and throughout Bosnia. It is a measure of the dramatic changes in the region that tonight a democratic Government in Croatia will welcome a new democratic President of Yugoslavia as a partner for progress.
There will of course be a broader range of issues to be discussed at the forthcoming Nice summit, which will, for instance, proclaim the charter of rights as a political declaration.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I am anxious to get on to more contentious matters, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
The charter provides a strong, clear statement of rights and freedoms. It meets fully our two negotiating objectives: that civil and political rights are consistent with the European convention on human rights, which Britain helped to write, and the economic and social

provisions are tied to national law and practice. It is an excellent statement, which can be supported by anyone who is not opposed to human rights.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: Well, if the hon. Gentleman insists on opposing human rights, I will give way to him.

Sir Michael Spicer: I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage in the debate to express concern about the treaty of Nice. Does he plan to sign that treaty in early December, or will it rumble on, like Maastricht, into the new year? In any event, when does he plan to ratify it?

Mr. Cook: It is our intention to negotiate the treaty by 9 December, not to continue into the new year. We cannot of course guarantee that everybody will seek to achieve that agreement, but that is what we aim to do. For reasons that I have explained to the House, it is important for Britain's national interests that we reach agreement at Nice.

Sir Michael Spicer: What about ratification?

Mr. Cook: We shall seek ratification as soon as it is possible to do so in the House, and we make no bones about that. Sir Michael Spicer: Will it be early in the new year?

Mr. Cook: Well, that will depend partly on the signature of the treaty and partly on the time available in the House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I want to have those debates as soon as possible. I look forward to exchanges with him and, in particular, to exposing the fact that the Conservative party really intends to oppose the treaty that paves the way for the enlargement of the European Union.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Absolutely.

Mr. Cook: Well, I have had my answer already. The Conservatives are opposed to the largest, most historic expansion of the EU and to the reforms that will make way for it. Before we have even reached that stage, we have it on record that the Conservatives are against enlargement and will not take the steps necessary for it.
Before I turn to the treaty of Nice, it may be convenient for the House if I deal with the issue of European security, to which the press this week has devoted a gratifying amount of attention.
This is a British initiative and it is a successful British initiative—

Mr. Forth: Oh!

Mr. Cook: Yes, it is. From the start, our priority has been to keep the initiative focused on improving the military capability for crisis management in Europe. It was Britain that pressed for the headline goal of the capability to put into the field up to 60,000 personnel


within 60 days. Britain has a strategic interest in the stability of the continent and, therefore, has a strong national interest in the greater ability of Europe to manage instability in and around Europe. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) yawns with weariness: if that reflects the modem Conservative party's commitment to stability on the continent of Europe, it is a betrayal of two centuries of Conservative party tradition.
Do those former Conservative Ministers who have been so impassioned in criticising the arrangements really believe that the management of crises in Europe was so perfect during their time in office that it could not be improved? Have they forgotten the years of humiliation in Bosnia, when we were part of a protection force that was too small to protect itself, never mind those it was sent to protect? Have they forgotten the massacre at Srebrenica, where 8,000 people were murdered after the protection force was compelled to leave them unprotected? Had we had the ability then to field a rapid reaction force of corps strength, those 8,000 victims might still be alive.

Mr. John Maples: Many Conservative Members share the objective of European nations being able to do more in defence; the question is whether that is done within NATO, or within the EU and outside NATO. Will the Foreign Secretary explain what the new force will be able to do in the EU and outside NATO that it could not have done had it been formulated within NATO under the arrangements agreed in Berlin in 1996?

Mr. Cook: It will be absolutely available to NATO, if NATO chooses to lead an intervention and to carry out an operation in crisis management. The fact is that there have been occasions in the past decade when NATO has chosen not to intervene; indeed, the years of UNPROFOR—the United Nations Protection Force—provide an example of one of the occasions on which NATO, on the whole, chose not to be involved. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be no alternative arrangement in Europe whereby, when NATO chooses not to become involved, Europe can manage crises within its continent.
There is another reason why the initiative is in the British national interest: it is valuable for Britain that other nations have been obliged by the capabilities conference to examine how they can meet the modern requirement for a flexible, mobile, rapid force. Until recently, only Britain and France had such units in strength. It is in Britain's interest that the military burden of future crisis management should be fairly shared with our partners.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend has said that the initiative is remarkable, and I agree, especially in terms of the involvement of Sweden, Finland and the Irish Republic. Have the Governments of any of those three countries voiced any reservations about missions that might take place outwith mainland Europe?

Mr. Cook: No. There has been extensive discussion with all four members of the EU that are not members of NATO to ensure that we have secured text that meets their national requirements. My hon. Friend's question

highlights one of the most important features of the exercise: it means that the nations themselves will be responsible for whether and to what extent they commit their armies to individual operations. That is valuable to those four nations and to Britain.
Let us have the facts, not the myths. As one informed observer has said:
The plan for a European defence identity is not intended to subvert or replace NATO, or to duplicate the huge investment that we and our allies have made in NATO…It is not a plan for a supranational European army under the control of the European Commission: decisions would be taken by Governments; the forces involved would remain national.
Those are not my words or those of any of my Labour colleagues. They are not the words of any foreigner whom Conservative Members might view with suspicion. They are the words of Lord Hurd, who was one of the longest-serving Conservative Foreign Secretaries—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might not regard himself as being in the same party as Lord Hurd, but that is an issue that he can take up with Lord Hurd. All week, the rest of the Conservative party has puffed with indignation at the outrage of Europe trying to do more for its own security.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whose presence I always welcome, knows that I follow his words with great care.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cook: I appreciate that. I give the hon. Gentleman 10 out of 10 for attendance.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful.

Mr. Cook: I knew that the hon. Gentleman, with his recent stress on sound education principles, would welcome that. I was struck by his confession during the summer, when he said:
The one thing I have learned since the election is that we must not appear as if we are foaming at the mouth.
This week, many of his colleagues have forgotten that lesson. The shadow Foreign Secretary knows what humbug his colleagues are talking. After all, he was the Minister with responsibilities for Europe under Lord Hurd. He knows that during that time the Conservatives negotiated the Maastricht treaty, which committed them to the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

Mr. Forth: Exactly.

Mr. Cook: I am glad that I have the right hon. Gentleman with me.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) knows about that commitment because he was the Conservative Minister who flew over to sign the Maastricht treaty. Yet on Tuesday, he was unable to dissuade the current Leader of the Opposition from telling the nation that the Conservative party would
insist that these arrangements are brought back within NATO.
The House will be relieved to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to do that. The arrangements were developed in full consultation and co-operation


with NATO. European Union Heads of State and Government have repeatedly said that there will be a European-led operation only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. If NATO does take the lead, the new resources created by these capabilities will be available to NATO. That is why Madeleine Albright welcomed the commitments this week as strengthening, not weakening, the Atlantic alliance.
Conservative Members are within their rights to say that they disagree with the Government's interpretation of the national interest. The purpose of the Chamber is to enable us all to advance our own view of the national interest—that is, the British national interest. I find it strange that so many Conservatives have surfaced during the week to speak for the American national interest. The American President, the American Defence Secretary and the American Secretary of State have all warmly endorsed the European security initiative. How can the representatives of Horsham, West Suffolk and Chesham and Amersham claim to know the American national interest better than the President of America?
The only thing that would put the alliance at risk is the Leader of the Opposition's pledge that the Conservative manifesto will commit Conservatives to break the commitments that Britain made this week. Sixteen of our allies in NATO took part in this week's capabilities conference. How does the Conservative party expect to persuade them that we are breaking the commitments that we gave to them to strengthen our alliance with them?

Several hon.: Members rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall give priority to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

Mr. Bercow: As the right hon. Gentleman is giving us a lecture about the importance of defence preparations and military co-operation, will he tell us precisely when he abandoned the position that he took at the 1982 Labour party conference, when he said:
I come to this rostrum to beg conference, to ask conference, to plead with conference to vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament?
When exactly did he change his mind?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I remain committed to the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We now have the opportunity to aim for that goal by pursuing a multilateral negotiation. I am much prouder of the views that I held in 1982 than the hon. Gentleman should be about his presence in the Monday Club during the same period.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Mr. Cook: If I may, I will press ahead.
If the Conservative party reneges on the commitments that we have made, that would not just be a betrayal of our allies.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Cook: No, I shall make progress.
It would be a betrayal also of Britain's interests.

Mr. Forth: Rubbish.

Mr. Cook: Indeed it would. For two centuries, even the Conservative party has understood that Britain's security is best preserved by maintaining stability on the continent. If the Conservative party abandons that, it is abandoning its own traditions. Nor do we find the Conservative party supporting the British—

Mr. Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No. I anticipate that Conservative Back Benchers wish me to talk about the treaty of Nice, and I intend to do so. I shall do so because we find that the Conservative party is failing again to support the British national interest on that other big issue before the Nice summit.
This European Council will mark a milestone towards the biggest enlargement in the history of the European Union. It is a historic step. It marks the completion of the reunion of Europe. If the fall of the Berlin wall marked the end of the division of Europe between the two political systems—

Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary is clearly leaving the question of the Euro army. He has told the House that the Government intend to enter into commitments for the creation of a Euro army to which this country will be bound. Is it in order for him to do that without the authority of Parliament?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is not a point of order but, rather, a point of information.

Mr. Cook: While awaiting my opportunity to open the debate, I sat through 20 minutes of Conservative Members complaining about the abuse of Parliament. Nothing better represents the abuse of Parliament than that totally bogus point of order. However, for the edification of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), there will be no question of the Government committing troops to any specific operation without specific debate in the Chamber.
I turn to the treaty of Nice, which we shall negotiate in a weeks' time.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Cook: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to intervene on that matter, and I shall give him time when the opportunity arises.
I stress that the treaty of Nice is about the reunification of Europe and preparing for enlargement of the European Union. Every single Government in the new democracies of central and eastern Europe wants to join the European Union. They see it as the best way to underpin their freedom and stability and the only way to boost inward investment and outward trade, but enlargement will also bring real benefits for existing members. It will make our single market even larger, and give us even greater


strength in international trade negotiations and a better capacity to co-operate on tackling common problems such as cross-border crime.
The report on enlargement that will be before the summit gives a positive verdict on the immense effort being made by most candidate countries to get themselves ready for membership. They have met the political criteria, including, in some cases, taking difficult and unpopular steps to protect the rights of minorities. They have faced up to painful and challenging reforms on state ownership and open competition, and are making good progress in transposing European law into their domestic law.
After making all those efforts, the candidate countries will not understand if the European Union itself fails to face up to the reforms that it needs to make so that our decision making will be effective in a Europe of 25 or more member states, rather than only 15. Yet the Conservative party, even before the Nice summit—indeed, even before I reached this passage in my speech—has confirmed that it will oppose those reforms that are necessary for enlargement. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members objecting that the treaty of Nice is not about enlargement. What will be under negotiation at Nice is essential to enlargement. It is essential that we agree on means of limiting the growth of the Commission as a result of enlargement. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst appears to be prepared to contemplate a Commission of more than 30, which is where we would end up under the present rules. It would be more a public meeting than a body capable of taking collective, coherent decisions. It is essential that we redistribute the voting weight in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Forth: No.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman says no. Well, let me explain. Under the present rules, Britain, France and Germany, after enlargement, would not hold between them even a blocking minority, although they would represent almost half the population of the European Union. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be prepared to accept that, but it would be an intolerable outcome. [Interruption.] It would be an affront to the democratic values on which the European Union is based. We shall therefore press at Nice for a real increase in the relative vote of Britain. If we succeed, the treaty of Nice will provide for the first ever increase in Britain's vote in the Council.
The treaty of Nice, therefore, is about providing for a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. That is what the Conservative party will oppose.

Mr. Bercow: How many vetoes will the Government give up?

Mr. Cook: There are some areas in which we want majority voting, because in those areas Britain will do well out of it. Under the present Government, Britain has already done well under majority voting. Over the past two years, we have won 80 decisions on majority voting and we have lost only five. All other major partners have lost more often: France has been outvoted eight times, Spain 11 times, and both Germany and Italy more than 20 times—four times more than Britain.
If all those decisions had been taken by unanimity, Britain would have lost every time because one of our partners would have vetoed it. We would not, for example, have secured the new rules on e-commerce, which are to Britain's advantage because British companies have the leading edge in the new technologies.
To take a totally different example—let us see whether the Opposition are interested in this—we could not have secured the new standards on drift nets in response to the concerns of our animal welfare lobby for the dolphins around the British coast. Both of those decisions would have been vetoed if they had been taken by unanimity.

Mr. John Redwood: The Government have stated time and again that they wish to retain a veto over our national tax policy. They seem to accept that this House should make tax decisions. Will the Foreign Secretary please explain, then, why the Chancellor had to confirm to me that we need European Union permission to make changes to vehicle excise duty in the pre-Budget statement, changes to VAT on churches and changes to stamp duty? That power has gone recently, under this Government, because the EU has simply asserted the power, without even waiting for the decision on the treaty of Nice. The Government still had the power to make such decisions when they came to office.

Mr. Cook: I can only repeat to the House what I have said on many previous occasions: we will not accept majority voting on taxation. I must also say to Opposition Members that this is not an issue on which Britain is isolated or alone; a number of other partner countries stand with us in recognising that taxation is important for the identity of a nation and the characteristics of a state. However, there are other areas—

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Cook: I must make progress.
I say frankly to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and his colleagues that there are other areas where we will be willing to consider an extension of majority voting. We would like to get rid of other nations' vetoes in areas where we are trying to get a decision in Britain's interest.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Cook: I shall conclude this point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
For example, we would like to get rid of the German veto over free movement of professionals. That would help British companies and professionals who want to work in other European countries. We would like to get rid of the Greek veto on transport liberalisation, which is currently held up because Greece does not want its ferries opened up to competition. I suspect that if there were competition, it would be a net plus for the millions of British travellers who visit Greece.
We would like to get rid of the Spanish and Portuguese veto on financial regulation to make sure that financial controls match the standards of accountancy of the northern states. We would like to get rid of the French veto on some elements of our common approach towards


the World Trade Organisation, so that we could secure a less protectionist negotiating position on audio-visual services.
In all those cases, a shift to majority voting would be in the British national interest. Conservative Members must explain why they want a British negotiating position to preserve the German veto, the Greek veto, the Spanish veto and the French veto to block decisions in Britain's interest.

Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. Is it still the view of his Department that, as stated in a letter of 13 July from one of the officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
Unlike the Maastricht or Amsterdam IGCs, this IGC will not be about increasing the powers of the Union?
Is that still the Foreign Office view? Will the Foreign Secretary give us a categoric assurance that the treaty will not increase the powers of the Union?

Mr. Cook: Yes. It is one of our positions on competencies right from the start that the treaty is not about extending the competence of the European Union. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when we report our success on that point after Nice.
There are areas that we believe are so central to the identity of the nation and the character of the state that unanimity is the appropriate basis for decision. We set them out in our White Paper at the start of the year. They are treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and the EU' s revenue. On none of those do we intend to accept majority voting. Our position on that has not changed in the nine months since February, when we printed the White Paper, and will not change in the 14 days until Nice.

Mr. Cash: On 22 May 1997, in an article that I know the Foreign Secretary will have read carefully, he clearly stated:
On defence, the French and Germans want the Western European Union to be merged into the EU. This would undermine NATO.
Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that position now that the WEU has been abolished?

Mr. Cook: I fully maintain our position that we will not undermine NATO. That is why, throughout the past two years—1998, 1999 and 2000—ever since we launched the St. Malo initiative, Britain has been careful to ensure at every step that nothing we did undermined NATO. As a result of those measures, the European Union now has a stronger relationship with NATO and with its non-EU members. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will support the initiative.
We look forward to negotiating a treaty at Nice that will deliver two strategic objectives of Britain in Europe: reform of its institutions and enlargement of its membership. If we succeed, that will represent a good outcome for the dozen candidate countries and a good deal for Britain.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham, has committed his party to a referendum on the Nice treaty and a campaign to stop it. It is brass neck on the Conservatives' part to claim to be the party of the

referendum. In their long years in office, they never once gave the British public a referendum on anything. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain why he believes that the treaty of Nice demands a referendum, but never thought to offer the public one before he signed the Maastricht treaty. With that signature, he signed away the British veto on 30 different articles. I can predict now that, whatever the outcome at Nice, we will not match the figure of 30 increases in majority voting to which he signed up at Maastricht. I do not intend to match his performance as an architect of more majority voting.
It is self-serving nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that when a Conservative Government agreed to majority voting, it served Britain's interest, but when this Government agree to a smaller amount of majority voting, it is a dangerous measure of integration. It is also damaging nonsense. Opposing the Nice treaty will simultaneously isolate Britain within the existing European Union and leave it without a friend among the candidate countries. No wonder that, when the former chairman of the Tory group in the European Parliament defected this week, he said:
Conservative influence on the Continent is now probably at the lowest level since the Napoleonic War.
Mr. Newton Dunn is obviously a man of sweeping historic perspective as well as wisdom.

Mr. Robathan: Mr. Newton Dunn is an MEP for my region and I listened to his justification for being chosen as a Conservative MEP. As he is not a Member of the House, I think that I can accuse him of having lied. He stated categorically that he had changed his view on Europe from that which had held previously and that he was now committed to the Conservative party view. The Foreign Secretary may use him to justify his case, but I assure him that the people who voted for Mr. Newton Dunn were lied to.

Mr. Cook: I think that all Labour Members who heard those comments will include them in their election addresses as a warning not to believe a Conservative candidate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not think that the Foreign Secretary can intrude into any debate on this matter, but I should like to let him know that I was present at the meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred. Those present at the meeting, which was held during the selection process, were not lied to by my former colleague, Mr. Bill Newton Dunn, for whom I still have considerable regard and respect.

Mr. Cook: The House will accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, which he makes with sincerity.
At some point in the next decade, the dozen or more candidate countries will join us around the table at the European Union. One reason why we want Britain to be a champion of enlargement is that we want those countries to remember Britain as an advocate and an ally of enlargement. I do not want them to remember Britain as the country that most strongly opposed the reforms necessary for enlargement. I want Britain to be still at the table when they join. However, the logic of Conservative policy is that we would have been long gone.
Lord Tebbit let the cat out of the bag on Tuesday when taking part in the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the resignation of Lady Thatcher.

Mr. Forth: The lamentations.

Mr. Cook: Or, in the case of Lord Tebbit and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the lamentations over her resignation. Lord Tebbit said of current Conservative policy—[Interruption.] At last, I have united the Opposition behind a Government proposal. Lord Tebbit said of current Conservative policy in Europe:
We both have doubts as to whether our partners will agree to having us "in" if we are not to be ruled "by". That of course raises the question should we be in or should we be out?
The "we" at the start of that quotation refers to Lord Tebbit and Lady Thatcher. The past week has shown once again how, 10 years after Lady Thatcher resigned, what she thinks today, Conservative Members will think tomorrow.
Nobody tries to catch up faster with Lady Thatcher's views than Lord Tebbit's replacement, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).

Mr. Bercow: A great man.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is certainly typical of the modern Conservative Front Bench. Yesterday, during the statement on European defence, there was a revealing moment when he described Europe as "over there", which is how the Americans used to refer to Europe. Plainly, in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, what separates Britain from the continent is not a channel, but an ocean. Europe is not over there.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary is deliberately misrepresenting what is in Hansard.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that what the Foreign Secretary is saying is not deliberately misleading.

Mr. Cash: I shall rephrase that by saying that the Foreign Secretary is misunderstanding what was said in yesterday's debate. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Defence Secretary, made it clear in an intervention after he was accused by the Defence Secretary of referring to "over there" as the continent—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Once again, this is a point of information rather than a point of order.

Mr. Cash: It all appears in Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green meant the other side of the House.

Mr. Cook: I am neither misunderstanding nor misrepresenting the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green: I am quoting him. He did say "over there" yesterday. Europe is not over there. Britain is part of Europe, and it is in our interest that we are a leading partner in it. The stronger Europe is in the world, the

stronger will be Britain. The more Europe embraces economic reform, the more prosperous will be Britain. The more Europe co-operates to defeat organised crime, the safer will be the streets of Britain. The more successful Europe is in the negotiations to halt climate change, the better will be Britain's environment. The greater Europe's military capacity for crisis management, the greater will be the security of Britain.
That is why the Government believe that Britain's place is not just in Europe, but in playing a leading part in Europe, setting the agenda and securing Britain's interests in Europe, as we will do at Nice. By contrast, the Conservative party is embracing policies that are a betrayal of Britain's strategic interests and would end up with a Britain marginalised and possibly excluded from a European Union that will soon stretch from the Atlantic ocean to the Black sea.

Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I will not. I keep reading that the Conservative party thinks that this is its trump card. If it is, it should play it as often as it can because, if that is the choice that it offers the electorate at the general election, it will lose and we will win.

Mr. Francis Maude: When we last debated these matters in June, the Foreign Secretary was, we later understood, unfortunately unable to deliver his speech in full as the result of pressure from on high. Time will tell whether what we heard today is his full speech or just the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expurgated highlights.
Last weekend, the Foreign Secretary was good enough to let the world know that he hoped the Chancellor would remember that he is not the Prime Minister. Perhaps in future he should let him know that he is not his sub-editor either, and that Britain expects to have a Foreign Secretary who is big enough and serious enough to decide for himself what he says to the House of Commons.
This has been a shabby start to the debate—a shabby speech. It is increasingly interesting to see how the Government are trying to frame the debate about the European Union. As time goes on—we have had a flavour of this today—anyone who disagrees with the Government's view of the future of Europe is written off as anti-European and, as the Foreign Secretary has said, as peddling lurid scare stories. We hear increasingly the authentic tone of a Government who are deeply out of touch with the people whom they govern—condescending about their concerns and contemptuous of their aspirations. Never has there been a Government so adamantly convinced that the men and women in Whitehall know best—although yesterday it seemed that the men and women in Whitehall do not altogether know what it is that they think is best.
The subject of the everything but arms agreement came up twice yesterday. It would be helpful if the Foreign Secretary could clear this matter up, as we have been given some confusing signals. At Question Time yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development made her position absolutely clear when she talked about
Pascal Lamy's proposal, which we strongly support.


A few minutes later, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who asked about this subject, the Prime Minister said:
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, yes, we are concerned about the proposal.—[Official Report, 22 November 2000: Vol. 357, c. 293-307.]
Which is it? Are the Government concerned about it or do they strongly support it?
The Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this week. He started off by saying:
This is not a matter for the General Affairs Council.
He was apparently unaware that Pascal Lamy had made a presentation about precisely this matter at the General Affairs Council on 9 October, which, according to the minutes of the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman had attended. One Minister says that the Government support the proposal strongly and another is concerned about it, so we looked to see what the Foreign Secretary said about it. He said:
It is a very major issue…I am unsighted on this.
So that clears that up. What a magisterial position that is—yet another bit of paperwork down at the bottom of the Red Box that the Foreign Secretary did not quite get to.
The Government will say anything and do anything to hide the truth. They will go to any lengths to distort what is happening, and have no shame about standing on their head if that serves their purpose. It is worth reflecting on the recent furore over passports. That is not in itself the biggest issue, but it is indicative of how the Government operate and what they do.
The fact that the European Commission was considering harmonising the design of national passports across the European Union was revealed in The Mail on Sunday—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait, because this incident becomes more revealing later on. The Mail on Sunday had picked up the story from a publication called the European Voice. Not surprisingly there was a storm of protest. Commissioner Kinnock came on the scene, and he described the report as rubbish. Without bothering to find out whether there was any basis to it, he decided to complain on the radio about
the perpetual disservice done to the readers of several British newspapers…who continually pump out this bilge which simply doesn't have a basis.
The Government contended that the report was untrue—a lurid scare story, in the Foreign Secretary's language. Unhappily for them, it soon emerged that it was true, as a couple of telephone calls could have confirmed. The Commissioner was indeed considering precisely such a proposal, as the Minister for Europe has subsequently admitted. In a statement that will have given pleasure to all his many friends, he said:
We are grateful to the readers of the Mail on Sunday for letting us hear their views on this matter and congratulate you—
congratulate The Mail on Sunday that is—
for running this story.
Could this be the same media whose coverage of Europe the Prime Minister described two days later as anti-European and fundamentally dishonest?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The right hon. Gentleman failed to quote the end of the article. I told The Mail on Sunday that it should not have run the story, because there was no proposal; there was only an idea put up by one official.

Mr. Maude: It is hard to see how adding any context to the statement
We…congratulate you for running this story
could make a radical difference to the meaning. Anyway, what problem do the Government have with a press that actually wants to tell people what is happening in the world? It is time for some honesty. Why cannot the Government be as straightforward about their plans as are their counterparts elsewhere?
The Prime Minister says that he wants Europe to be a super-power, not a super-state. A few weeks ago, I publicly offered a bottle of champagne to anyone who could convincingly distinguish between the two. The House may not be surprised to learn that it has not been awarded, or even claimed. I rather expected the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Europe to claim it, but neither has done so.
We are talking about a project involving a President who describes himself as running the Government of Europe. It has its own currency, it will have an army, and it has its own anthem and flag. Commissioners plan to introduce a single passport. A European constitution is planned. It is not clear to most people how all that cannot be intended to constitute a state. They listen to what is said by others in Europe, who make no bones about their plans for a relentless further programme of political integration.
The Government should understand that most people in Britain do not want to be part of the European super-state. Those people are not anti-European, extreme or xenophobic; they are not little Englanders. The mainstream majority of the public are becoming pretty irritated by patronising, offensive Ministers who describe them as such.
Four major projects are afoot, and the Government want Britain to be committed uncritically to all four. They are the euro, the charter of fundamental rights, the European army, and a further move towards political integration at Nice. But there is a better vision than that, which is more in tune with the modern world of globalisation and networks. It is a vision of a flexible Europe, a multi-system Europe, enlarged to embrace the whole family of European nations and to heal the divide that disfigured Europe throughout the cold war and is still shamefully unhealed.
What is so disillusioning for people here in Britain who take a warm, generous, internationalist view is the discovery that the Government are not even trying to achieve that. They are still locked in a time warp—locked into the old cold war bloc mentality, and the outdated dogma of "one size fits all" uniform integration across Europe.

Mr. Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Government return from Nice having sacrificed 15, 20 or more vetoes, and having accepted a dangerous charter that is a model for a constitution for Britain and for Europe—along with many other moves towards the creation of an integrated super-state—the Conservative


party will oppose all that vigorously in the House, and that we will demand a referendum because we think that the British people should have the right to decide?

Mr. Maude: Let me make it clear, as I have done before, that we will oppose a Nice treaty that is integrationist.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Maude: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to respond to our invitation and say that the Government will not try to ratify the treaty without seeking the consent of the British public in a referendum, I shall be happy to give way so that he can tell us what his position is. If he proposes to try to ratify the treaty before an election, without seeking public consent in either an election or a referendum, let him say so.

Mr. Cook: The treaty of Nice will be entirely consistent with the basis on which we fought the last election—the reform and enlargement of Europe. There is no case for a separate referendum. [Interruption.] There is no such case. As a matter of fact, it is our party that is going into an election offering the people of Britain a referendum on the euro. The Conservative party is denying them a choice.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can make one thing clear. According to his figures, the treaty may involve an increase in majority voting in 15 articles. Why does that require a referendum, given that the Maastricht treaty, which contained 30 such articles, did not?

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: An election has taken place between the two events.

Mr. Maude: That is true. Furthermore—in a sense, this is precisely the point that the Foreign Secretary has made—we have already lost the veto in many areas. There is no great enlightenment in that regard; it is merely a question of how much more we can lose.
I shall deal with the whole issue of qualified majority voting and its implications for European unity and harmony. Let me begin by nailing the Foreign Secretary's contention that the Nice summit, and the Nice treaty, are about enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for reform of the Commission and reweighting of votes, and I agree that those things are desirable. They could easily be negotiated as a ring-fenced set of arrangements, and we would strongly support the Government if they achieved agreement on that. It is not right, however, to say that those things are essential to enlargement, and it is certainly not correct to say that the real roadblock on the way to enlargement is the lack of qualified majority voting.
This intergovernmental conference is about political integration—nakedly so—and the only Government who maintain that it is not are this Government. If it were seriously about enlargement, it would tackle the real roadblock: the common agricultural policy. We look in vain for any proposals for the radical reform that would enable enlargement to go ahead quickly. We find that the present Government, for all their protestations about enlargement, have done nothing to put it on to the agenda.
The Foreign Secretary has said again today that the Government will not accept the loss of the veto on immigration, on defence, on treaty change, on social security and on tax—although, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the European Union institutions are already asserting their ability to make tax proposals based on qualified majority voting.
The Government have—I hope—made it clear, in their February White Paper, that they will not agree to the establishment of a European public prosecutor. There is no great drama about that. Not even a Government as out of touch as ours would risk agreeing to such proposals in the months preceding a general election.
We know what will happen at Nice. There will be a carefully stage-managed row. Mr. Alastair Campbell will emerge to tell a breathlessly waiting press corps that the Prime Minister has stood up for Britain manfully, and has rejected proposals to which there was never the slightest chance of the Government's agreeing in the first place. What will happen is agreement to a significant extension of the areas decided by qualified majority voting.
The Foreign Secretary raised the whole issue of the veto over financial regulation. Is he seriously telling the House that he is prepared to contemplate allowing Europe-wide financial regulation to be imposed by qualified majority voting, and to contemplate the creation of a Euro-SEC over which we would have no veto? Does he really believe that that is in the interests of London, the pre-eminent international financial centre in the world? Is that what he is proposing?

Mr. Cook: No, and it is not in the treaty. Financial regulation in the treaty means regulation of the financial affairs of the European Union. I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to support us in seeking tougher, stricter financial regulation.

Mr. Maude: We think that the further extension of qualified majority voting is wrong. It is wrong not just for Britain, but for Europe. If Ministers are interested in European harmony and unity, the worst thing to do in the world as it is today is to extend the areas in which a majority can impose its will on the minority. That is divisive, not unifying. Relentless political integration is the enemy of European unity, not its friend.

Mr. Giles Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: No. I will carry on with my speech.
If it is so difficult to force decisions through that mincing machine, the answer is not to increase the speed of the mincer, but to try to force less through it. The agenda at Nice should not be about relentless further political integration. It should be about creating the wider, more flexible multi-system Europe that the public in Britain want.

Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman has waxed eloquent about qualified majority voting, but I have just done some research. I should like to quote from him when he was a Minister, not in opposition:
There are many lively discussions in Brussels and the number of times that we are isolated is small. We have extremely good arguments and we win most of them. The number of times that we are in the minority and are out-voted is tiny.—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]


That is just what the Foreign Secretary has told him. He knows it to be true. Why is he talking such nonsense in the House today?

Mr. Maude: Everyone has accepted that, to create the single market, which is where we principally gave up the right of veto, there was a strong case for doing that. I negotiated many of the single market measures. We did so extremely effectively. If we were seldom outvoted, it was because of the extreme skill with which those matters were conducted.

Dr. Nick Palmer: rose—

Mr. Bill Rammell: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Maude: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bercow: The Foreign Secretary is extraordinarily insouciant about the level of European Union interference in our affairs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, no fewer than 4,065 directives, regulations and decisions from the European Union have impacted on this country in 1998, 1999 and 2000? Does he not agree that the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, so lauded and magnified by the Foreign Secretary, has done nothing to arrest the process of European integration? Rather, it has given the green light to its continuation.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend should place those figures on the table of the House, so that they can be studied properly.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand them.

Mr. Maude: I understand them perfectly well. They make precisely my point, which is that more and more is being forced into the mincing machine. The complaint is that the mincing machine cannot cope with it. The lesson that we should draw from that is that the European Union should be doing less. It should restrict its ambitions and do what it has to do properly.
Let us be blunt about it: much of what the European Union still does is done badly; particularly much of what the European Commission does. If it concentrated its efforts on getting right what it is meant to do right, instead of supporting ever more political integration, it would be a better European Union, better serving the people of Europe.

Mr. Rammell: rose—

Dr. Palmer: rose—

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Maude: I give way to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)

Mr. Rammell: We have just heard the right hon. Gentleman's mea culpa for why he gave away the veto

42 times during the Single European Act. May we now have the litany of excuses about why he gave it away 30 times during the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Maude: I am not sure that that is worthy of an answer. I will proceed with what we are facing at the Nice summit.

Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make a little progress.
I move to something else that the Foreign Secretary will deal with at the Nice summit: the charter of fundamental rights, about which he spoke a little. On that, too, Ministers are playing the straw man game: elevate a possibility that they know will not happen and then claim credit for beating it down. Last weekend, they briefed the press that, against all opposition, they had ensured that the charter would not be part of the treaty—it would not be incorporated in the treaty—but that has been clear for some time. It is clear that no one really presses for it to be part of the treaty any longer. Why? Because it is now abundantly clear that, whether or not it is part of the treaty, it will be mandatory.
Ministers say that it will not be mandatory, but they should take account of what the Commission has said. In its formal communication on the legal nature of the charter of fundamental rights, it says that it can reasonably be expected that the charter will become
mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law.
Effectively, it is saying that it does not mind whether it is in the treaty or not. It would prefer it to be, for reasons of visibility and clarity. It goes on to say:
It is therefore preferable for the sake of visibility and certainty as to the law for the charter to be mandatory in its own right and not just through its judicial interpretation.
Ministers talking about excluding the charter from the treaty is a matter of supreme irrelevance because it will be legally binding, one way or another.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Maude: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Mr. Heald: Is it not the case that, under article 6.2 of the Amsterdam treaty, the fundamental rights must be respected? What the charter does is to define them. Therefore, they will be mandatory on member states in so far as they are implementing European law. There is no doubt about it. In fact, article 51 of the charter says so.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is completely right. There is only one group of people in Europe who argue that the thing will not be mandatory. Many people here are clear that it will be mandatory. The Commission is clear that it will be.

Mr. MacShane: The Germans, the French, the Dutch.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is quoting people who do not want the charter to be in the treaty. There may


be plenty of people who do not want it be in the treaty. That is not the point. They are all saying that it will be mandatory anyway, precisely because of what the European Commission is saying. If it is now being seriously argued in the House that the European Commission has it fundamentally wrong, that its reading of the law is completely wrong and that it will not import it into law, the European Council will not and the European Court will not, that is a new contention.
I note that the Foreign Secretary is not seeking to intervene to say that the European Commission in its formal communication has it wrong. Why will he not do it? Because he knows that it is the truth. The truth is that the charter will become binding. So much for the Minister for Europe's facile claim that it will be of no more value than the Beano. If it is of no more use than the Beano, why are Ministers so enthusiastic about it? Why do they want to proclaim it? Why do they not go there to proclaim the Beano? Would that not be as much use?

Dr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: I will make some progress at this stage.
I turn to the European army. It is here that the Government have been most recently found out. Let us face it: it has been a bad week for the Government. When the Foreign Secretary talked about their headline goal, I do not think that he thought he would have the headlines that he has had this week. I do not mind them having a bad week. I am keen on them having many bad weeks, but it has also been a bad week for Britain. I do mind about that.
It is not about whether we support greater European defence capability or greater defence co-operation. We all support that. That is motherhood and apple pie, but we already have a European defence organisation. It is called NATO. It has existed for more than 50 years. It has created the habit of us working closely together. It has engendered trust between the European military establishments. It has been the principal means by which America has remained engaged in our continent. It ensures that European countries such as Turkey and Norway whose commitment to the alliance is strategically crucial remain fully engaged. It is flexible. Look at Kosovo, where the composition of KFOR includes Swedes, Finns and Austrians, who are outside NATO. It already is flexible. It is already capable of doing everything that is claimed for the rapid reaction force.
There are real concerns that the proposals will undermine and divide NATO. What was the Foreign Secretary's response to the concerns? He described them as
lurid claims…euro scare tactics.
The Prime Minister said that the concerns are "fundamentally dishonest". Those are harsh words from someone for whom a rigid adherence to the truth is an unshakeable maxim. The Defence Secretary, in his ineffably patronising manner, says that people are over-excited and that it is all an anti-European scare story.
Unfortunately for them, however, the range of serious people opposed to the development includes many who could not by the wildest of standards be described as anti-European, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), Lord Carrington, Lord Healey, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and even Lord Owen.

The Foreign Secretary might have forgotten this, but Lord Owen left the Labour party not because it was too pro-European, but—the exact reverse—because it was too anti-European.
Those people all make the same point: nothing about the scheme is being done for military or defence reasons; it is all about politics. It is about endowing the European Union with another of the trappings of statehood. It is part of the path to the super-state.
President Chirac of France said that the European Union
cannot fully exist until it possesses autonomous—
note that word; autonomous from NATO—
capacity for action in the area of defence.
He also described the creation of the European army as a "milestone" in the development of a European political union.
Only the British Government deny that it is being done for political reasons. All their partners and colleagues in the other member states of the European Union say that it is being done for political reasons. They do not seek to hide it. They think that it is a good thing. The British Government, however, know that the British public do not agree with it, and therefore try to hide the truth—that it is part of a political union and a drive to further political integration.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maude: I shall make some progress, if I may.
The Government even deny that it is intended to be a European army. But they reckoned, of course, without the obliging Mr. Prodi, who has been forthright as ever. Memorably, he has said:
When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have decided to take that advice, although they have not yet chosen to call it Mary-Ann or Margaret, which were the alternative names proposed by Mr. Prodi. Nevertheless, it is quite clear what Mr. Prodi was saying. He was saying that it should be a European army, that it is a European army, and that it is being established to give the European Union more of the trappings of statehood. Undoubtedly Mr. Prodi was in league with the anti-European press to generate scare stories, to sell more newspapers.
Let us be clear about it. European defence co-operation is a good thing. Greater European defence capability—which this project will not deliver—would be even better, but that should be done within NATO, not outside it. We will work to bring the arrangements back within NATO, where they belong.
The super-state agenda of relentless political integration is an outdated dogma that belongs to yesterday. In the era of globalisation, a modern Europe needs flexibility, democratic accountability and legitimacy. We want to see a great move forward, with an enlarged European Union at last embracing the whole family of European nations. That entails a more flexible, not a more rigid European Union. Where there are failed centralised policies—such as the
common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the disgracefully badly managed European Union aid programme—much more decision making should be returned to the member states.
There is a real case and a real chance that if Britain were to make the case for that modern, multi-system European Union, it could succeed. The mainstream majority of the British public want, and the modern world requires, that type of European Union. If the Government would only acknowledge it, that is what the outcome of the Danish referendum makes a bit more likely. That is the dream that Britain has nursed for decades—of a Europe of close co-operation between independent nation states growing more prosperous together, with war between us unthinkable.
What a tragedy it is that the Government just let the case go by default. Rather than a forthright call to action, we see the slithering and the weaselly contortions of a Government acting by stealth to do what they know the public would reject. People are getting sick of it. They are getting sick of the Government. Happily, they will soon have the chance to get rid of them.

Mr. Donald Anderson: One of the key roles of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to hold hearings with the Foreign Secretary before any European Council. We did so on Tuesday. I am grateful that the Leader of the House, in response to an appeal from the Foreign Affairs Committee, arranged this debate two days after those hearings, so that the transcript could inform this debate.
It is extraordinarily difficult to have a rational debate on Europe given the extremism within the Conservative party and, alas, in the majority of the British press. For example, in one of the few mentions of the Foreign Affairs Committee's hearings on Tuesday, The Daily Telegraph—a serious newspaper—alleged that one of the members was sleeping and implied that it was sad that we did not savage the Foreign Secretary, but instead had a reasoned and reasonable discussion with him.
I fear that the possibility of a reasoned debate on Europe will become even less likely as we approach a general election, as the main Opposition party regard the issue as perhaps the only one on which it has even the semblance of a chance of connecting with public opinion. Conservative Members, in grand terms, portray progress as the loss of our liberty and as foreigners telling us what to do and generally stabbing us in the back. That is clearly a distortion of the truth.
The essence of the Nice Council is a preparation for enlargement, dealing with the leftovers of Amsterdam. Surely every reasonable person must agree that institutions devised for the group of the six first members will in no way be fitted to a group of 26 or 30. It is wrong to declare oneself in favour in principle of enlargement, but, at the same time, to block the very institutional changes that are necessary to provide the platform for that enlargement.
The vision of Europe described by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is shared only by him and other Conservative Members. If they persist in that vision, they will be left on a sandbank as Europe passes

them by. Alas, however, should they ever be in government, Europe will pass the British Government by. That would be bad for this country, and it is hardly anti-patriotic to say so.
The right hon. Member for Horsham also spoke of a bad week for Britain in defence. I remind him—I hope that he has some humility about it—that 10 October was a bad day for him. On that day, there was the unhappy coincidence in which he went to Paris to speak to IFRI, when he said that the defence proposals were being driven by a "cancer of anti-Americanism", whereas a couple of hours earlier, on that very same day, the United States Secretary of Defence gave "wholehearted" support for those very same proposals. Is it not just a little patronising to believe that one can know the interests of the United States better than the United States itself does?

Mr. Maude: I am not particularly concerned about the interests of the United States, but I am concerned about the interests of Europe, in terms of America remaining firmly engaged in, and committed to, Europe. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that there is deep concern among Americans—privately expressed by many of them, but also, increasingly, publicly expressed—he has not done his research properly. Even Secretary Cohen, in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred, commented that the proposal would be unsatisfactory. He said that it would be absurd
if NATO and the EU were to proceed along the path of relying on autonomous force planning structures.
However, that is being put in place.

Mr. Anderson: Of course there will be different views in the United States, because it is a great and vibrant democracy. However, I do not quote whispers made behind backs by individual Congressmen. I quote the US Administration. I shall let the words speak for themselves. Secretary Cohen said in Birmingham on 10 October:
Let me be clear on America's position. We agree with this goal—not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.
The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said on Monday:
It is a strongly positive development we wholly support…It is a key feature of the European Security and Defence Identity, a NATO initiative that the US has supported wholeheartedly.
How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that the proposal is a "cancer of anti-Americanism", when the US recognises it for what it is: an essay in burden sharing, something for which it has been pressing for a very long time? When Baroness Thatcher talked airily this week about the English-speaking peoples speaking together, she was talking not about countries such as Nigeria, but about the transatlantic relationship. Alas, it takes two to tango, and it is clear that the US Administration takes a very different view of the development from hers.

Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No, I want to make progress. Lord Robertson said that
a European force would produce "added capability" for NATO.
I remind the Opposition of what Lord Hurd said in the Financial Times in February this year:
Now, at last, a project has been launched. It is a strong British interest that it succeeds.
That was the voice of the old Conservatives until, alas, the Conservative party was taken over—on the Front Bench and elsewhere—by those whose paternity the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) questioned.
However, if we are to have a rational debate, I must acknowledge that there are genuine concerns about the development. On the question of capability, is Europe prepared to go beyond grand declarations and provide the resources? Will Europe deliver on the financial side? There have clearly been deficiencies in the past, but I invite hon. Members to look at the latest report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which states that
Eleven out of the 16 European allies in NATO (including the UK) are spending more on defence.
Countries such as the Netherlands are specifically citing this new European dimension as a reason to justify their increased expenditure on defence.
On intelligence, there are concerns that the European Union is a leaky organisation, that there is not an adequate building, and that there are problems with interpreters and with classified documents. Those issues must be addressed. There are also problems about the institutional linking of NATO and the European Union. I am glad that we in the United Kingdom, in the military committee of the EU, are double-hatting, so that our people on the relevant NATO committees will also serve on the EU committee, ensuring that there is no duplication.
I also take seriously the joint letter from Lords Carrington, Healey and Owen and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, published in The Daily Telegraph this week, which, although negative in tone, ends by urging "the utmost caution" in proceeding. That is a proper theme. If the proposal is to proceed, it will need careful planning, and we must make haste slowly.
Countries that are part of NATO but not of the EU also have relevant interests. Turkey will provide between 5,000 and 6,000 members of its own forces, as discussed at the capability conference earlier this week. All the candidate countries agreed to provide forces at the conference. It would be absurd, now that Europe is coalescing and working round this new joint initiative bringing together non-EU NATO members and others, if we were to follow the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and withdraw from it. That would cause immense anger and disappointment among countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, which we shall regard as allies when, we hope, they join the European Union in the next few years. We need to work with them, not annoy them by making frivolous, anti-European gestures.
A valuable element of our meeting with the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday was the opportunity that it gave us to clarify certain problems, and raise certain other questions. I shall go through the leftovers from Amsterdam, and highlight some of the elements that emerged from our meeting on Tuesday. On the dual majority, it appears clear that the Government's No. 1 priority is to increase our vote in the Council, so that there would no longer be the need for a dual majority. It is

reported that France is opposed to that. Although I do not expect the Minister of State to reveal our negotiating brief, I hope that he will be able to comment on the issue.
The Foreign Secretary said that it would be difficult if we were to end up with 26 or 27 Commissioners. The likely outcome of Nice is that every country will have one Commissioner. Are there any circumstances in which the United Kingdom would agree to a proposal not to have a Commissioner?
There appears to be a further change in the Government's position on the target dates for enlargement. In the past, we have said that it would be wrong to name specific target dates, but the Prime Minister seemed to go beyond that in his Warsaw speech, saying that he wanted new member states to participate in European parliamentary elections in 2004. Now, on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary suggested that he hopes that there will be a consensus on target dates by the Gothenburg Council in June next year. On enhanced co-operation, the Foreign Secretary envisages a right of appeal in respect of the pillar 1 activities, rather than the veto that we have now.
There is a serious problem about parliamentary oversight of the new defence arrangement. The next intergovernmental conference, probably in 2004 or 2005, should look at the Prime Minister's idea, which he put forward in Warsaw, of a second chamber. Until then, there will be a serious void, a deficit, in the parliamentary accountability of the new defence arrangements. Of course, we have scrutiny in member states, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has properly stressed that the new arrangements are intergovernmental.
We need some means of establishing democratic oversight at European level, perhaps by building on the Western European Union Assembly and bringing in the European Parliament and other candidate countries. The Dutch have proposed that, at least, a declaration that that issue will be examined by the Swedish presidency is on the agenda for Nice. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that this is a real problem for us as parliamentarians and democrats, and I hope that he will ensure that it is seriously debated soon.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On Monday, at about lunchtime, I walked unhindered and unhampered through the Brandenburg gate. That would not have been possible 12 years ago. Indeed, if the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, had had her way, it would not be possible today either, because she opposed German reunification.

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No.
We can now move freely through Berlin, and many candidate countries from the former Warsaw pact want to become members of the European Union

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman should contain himself for a moment.
The circumstances that I have described are related to the fact that the two great institutions of the post-war period—NATO and the European Union—provided military strength and political and economic strength. They preserved the peace and brought stability, democracy and economic success to part of the continent of Europe—

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: Not for the moment.
The continent of Europe was twice brought to the brink of destruction by nationalism and conflict in the 20th century.

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Campbell: I will give way in a moment: the right hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
The two great institutions have been complementary. Their success has been based on a mixture of the visionary and the pragmatic. Both have contributed to the present circumstances in Europe, and it is true to say that the cold war was a necessary element in the evolution of Europe to what it is today. In acknowledging NATO's importance, we acknowledge the fact that the cold war had to be conducted in the way that it was, and that the west, under the leadership of the United States, had to show the resolution that it did. However, it is vital that we accept that that period is now over. Different considerations now apply, not least when we consider what should be the proper way to achieve the necessary security in regard to both the transatlantic relationship and to those former Warsaw pact countries that now belong to NATO and aspire to join the European Union.

Mr. Redwood: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct the record. I am sure that he did not mean to say that Baroness Thatcher and her Government were against German reunification. The policy of that Government was to welcome reunification. More importantly, it was Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, and President Reagan, who stood strong for the west to bring the Berlin wall down. It would not have come down if the west had not followed the policies of those two leaders, and Baroness Thatcher deserves some tribute from this House for the magnificent work that she did.

Mr. Campbell: The record shows that the then Prime Minister's attitude towards Chancellor Kohl and German reunification was one not of support but of opposition. There is much evidence that she was reluctant—

Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No, not for the moment.

Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said that he is not willing to give way to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).

Mr. Radice: rose․

Mr. Campbell: I will give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice).

Mr. Radice: Conservative Members are questioning the version of events offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but they have only to read Mrs. Thatcher's memoirs. She makes it absolutely clear that she was totally against German reunification, but had to accept that the United States, France and Germany were in favour of it. Because for once she did not want to be totally isolated, she went along with those countries and supported reunification, albeit with great misgivings.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I consider to be corroborative of my statement, for which there are many other sources of support.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution does him no credit whatsoever. A cursory examination of the record shows that Baroness Thatcher's Government supported German reunification. I can say that with some authority, as I was Minister with responsibility for Europe at the time.

Mr. Campbell: I certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he was in favour of German reunification, and that the Government of whom he was a member had to accept that reunification in the end. However, I do not demur from my earlier statement that Lady Thatcher originally opposed German reunification.
I was speaking about the contribution made by the two great institutions, NATO and the European Union. Those institutions were complementary: one dealt with security, and the other with politics and economics. That combination eventually created the circumstances that caused the Berlin wall to come down, and the dissolution, in due course, of the Warsaw pact.
It is vital to accept that circumstances have changed when we come to consider what the future of Europe should be. Any future Europe must be willing to accept the accession of other countries to the European Union. That is the purpose of the treaty of Nice, and there is no justification for the apocalyptic view of the treaty that has characterised some of the debate over the past few days.
There are those who say no to Nice. They insist that the House should not ratify the treaty, regardless of what its terms will be, and that the Government should not sign it. However, in effect, those people are saying no to enlargement of the European Union for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Maude: Enlargement is possible without the treaty of Nice.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but if enlargement is undertaken on the present terms, a number of questions arise. What would be the size of the Commission? Would not countries that do not represent a majority of population in an enlarged EU have the ability to outvote countries that do represent a majority of population, as the Foreign Secretary has warned?
Enlargement might be possible without an extension of qualified majority voting, but, under those circumstances, countries that join the EU would be in a position to exercise a veto immediately. They would therefore be able


to prevent existing and recently joined member countries from bringing about any objective on which they all agreed.
It is true in theory that enlargement can happen without a treaty of Nice, but it is clear that, without such a treaty, political difficulties would mean that enlargement would be delayed for a very long time. That would be a poor reward for those countries that have worked so hard to achieve democratic standards and to move towards market economies. The consequence would be to underline the view that the European Union was introspective and protective and that it was not willing to share the benefits and advantages that have accrued to its members with those countries whose peoples lived for so long under systems that were wholly antagonistic and inimical to the objectives for which the European Union was formed.

Mr. Wilkinson: Are the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party in favour of enhanced co-operation? That is one of the themes that will emerge from the Nice treaty discussions. Would he support certain key European Union countries going ahead with certain areas of policy at a different speed from the rest of the membership?

Mr. Campbell: I have no difficulty with enhanced co-operation, as long as it does not have the effect of creating a two-tier Europe. For example, enhanced co-operation is clearly appropriate when it comes to defence. However, we must guard against creating a Europe in which there are first and second-class countries. That would be deeply damaging.
There is no evidence that the United Kingdom's fundamental interests are likely to be prejudiced by the treaty of Nice. Before I turn to some of the issues that I believe will arise in Nice, I want to spend a moment considering the European security and defence policy. My views are well known, and there is no need to detain the House on the matter. However, if the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is worried about cold war rhetoric, he ought to read some of the observations and remarks made by those who oppose the European security and defence policy. Much of their thinking appears to be locked into the rhetoric of the cold war. They fail to accept and understand that not only have circumstances changed in Europe but attitudes have changed in the United States.
It is simply not true to say that we are creating a standing European army, that NATO is being replaced, that British troops will be sent to fight on a majority resolution of the European Parliament and that all this could happen against the will of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. Does anyone seriously believe that in Germany—a country sensitive to the point of anxiety about military operations outside its borders—there would be any willingness to accept such operations? The German Government had to go to the constitutional court of Germany before they could put troops on the ground in Bosnia. It is beyond belief to expect that the German nation would sign up to this pastiche of a description of the European security and defence policy.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a well-thought-out speech. However, I remind him that, only a couple of years ago, the Nuremberg memorandum, which I am sure that he is aware of, stated

clearly that they envisaged a relationship between France and Germany within the context of the Western European Union that included, for example, a collective defence based on a combination between conventional forces and nuclear forces. The idea that this is just a de minimis operation is rubbish.

Mr. Campbell: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says about the Nuremberg declaration, but that in no way fuels the notion that we are creating a single European army which will be invited—indeed, instructed—to fight on a majority decision of the members of the European Parliament. In Germany, just as in the United Kingdom, there is jealous guarding of the fact that committing troops and asking people to risk their lives is the responsibility of the domestic political system.
I actually agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who made the point in business questions that there should be some role for this House of Parliament when British forces are deployed abroad, and that it should no longer simply be part of the Executive prerogative. However, I do not believe that Germany or France has any enthusiasm for the description of a European security and defence policy that has characterised so much of the ill-informed comment that we have heard this week.
I have two further points, one of which picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Capability must match military ambition, and commitments on paper need to be founded in reality. There is no point in any country—Britain included—committing squadrons of aircraft when there are insufficient serviceable engines to ensure that those aircraft could be deployed if required. It is not all that long since there were two dozen aircraft on the ground at RAF Bruggen and only half a dozen engines available by which they might be able to fly. We must ensure that, if commitments are made on paper, they are supported in reality.
I have been unsuccessful in persuading the Secretary of State for Defence with regard to my next point, but perhaps I shall enjoy a little more success with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To ensure that the primacy of NATO is recognised, the protocols—the arrangements—should provide that NATO should always have the right of first refusal before any military action is taken. If that requirement were inserted in the arrangements, it could never be said that NATO had been sidelined or undermined. Let me express the hope, even at this stage, that the Government will consider that proposal. It comes from the United States—representing some of the legitimate concern that has already been discussed in the House—and would go a long way towards dealing with the position of the United States and, just as significantly, with the position of members of NATO which are not also members of the European Union.
I do not expect the treaty of Nice to be a great constitutional watershed on defence, treaty change, social security, taxation, own resources or borders, because the veto should remain in those areas.

Sir Michael Spicer: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very well-thought-out speech,


but there is a bit that I do not understand. The Liberal Democrat party believes in a federal state of Europe, so why does it approve a treaty and defence arrangements which it argues are not federalist?

Mr. Campbell: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the view that the Liberal Democrat party believes in a federal Europe—perhaps it comes from Conservative party briefing papers. I certainly believe in federal systems of government, in which power is devolved from the centre to the constituent bodies of, for example, the United Kingdom. If there were to be a federal Europe of that kind, I would certainly have some sympathy with it. However, the federal Europe to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an invention in which the artificial apprehension is that everything that is relevant to Edinburgh, for example, will be decided in Brussels. I am not in favour of that kind of federalism, so defined by the hon. Gentleman's question; I am in favour of the kind that ensures that decisions are taken close to the people who are most affected by them.
As to the veto, I have no doubt about supporting the Government's attitude on those matters. They are so fundamentally in the interests of the United Kingdom that the veto should be retained. However, there will be circumstances in which the retention of the veto would be against our interests. That is why we should take it on a case-by-case basis, whether or not there are any opportunities for qualified majority voting in other areas. It is as unrealistic to say that we will never agree to any further extension of QMV as it would be to abandon the veto and allow everything connected with the European Union to be determined on a majority.
I hope that the Government are seeking to reform the institutions of the European Union so that the 50 years of division about which the right hon. Member for Horsham spoke earlier can be set aside. In enlarging the Union, we are not simply rewarding those countries for their efforts but helping them to embed those values of liberal democracy in their countries. We will also be helping them—inducing them, even, because of the economic advantage—to open up their markets. In that way, we will all benefit.
We will be inviting those countries to join a mature political and economic union that exists between the members of the European Union. The co-operation that we have seen in Europe is unprecedented. That should be a matter of pride, not of apprehension or anxiety. The reweighting of votes is essential as a check and balance to prevent member states representing a minority of the European population from assembling enough votes in the Council to outvote member states which represent the majority of the population. It is sensible to provide for reduction in the potential number of commissioners. Majority voting should, as I have said, be extended on a case-by-case basis, where it is in our interests to agree to it.

Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, will he explain whether

he believes that qualified majority voting should be extended to culture policy and sexual equality and, if so, on what basis has he reached that view?

Hon. Members: It is on the agenda.

Mr. Campbell: Whether it is on the agenda or not, that is a case for arguing. I believe in sexual equality and absence of discrimination against sexual orientation. That is a good Liberal principle, and I have no objection to qualified majority voting applying to that. It might ensure that in other parts of Europe, where attitudes are less tolerant and liberal, British attitudes might ultimately prevail.
On the charter of human rights, I do not believe that it should justiciable now for two reasons. One is pragmatic: we have but recently repatriated the European convention on human rights into the domestic legal systems of the United Kingdom. Unquestionably, both systems will take some time to adjust. It does not make much sense to impose on what has recently been repatriated yet another charter of rights until we see how the action of repatriation works out and its consequences. That is an entirely pragmatic view.
I have a more principled objection at this stage, however; the proposed charter of human rights should not be justiciable in the absence of a proper constitution. The rights of the individual are certainly part of a constitutional settlement, but this charter should not become justiciable before we have a constitution.
I have no hesitation in saying that the time is ripe for a constitution for the EU. It would force a rigorous assessment and definition of responsibilities and relationships between domestic Parliaments, the Commission, the Council, the European Court and the European Parliament. In that context, it would give the opportunity to define the rights of the citizen. It would also bring some clarity and transparency. I very much hope that the Nice Council will establish a mechanism for devising such a constitution.
I hope also that the Council will devise means for far greater transparency in the Council itself when it acts in a legislative capacity. When it does so, it should be open to the public; at the very least, there should be publication of all its votes within, say, 24 or 48 hours of them having taken place. Far too much of what is done in the Council in a legislative capacity is concealed from the citizens of the EU.
The Government cannot escape some criticism in any argument about Europe. The notion—apparently put about in some Government circles—that they can conduct a European-free election campaign when the general election is called is just plain wrong. As events this week have demonstrated, important issues derive from our membership of the EU. The question of the single European currency will have to be resolved in due course for this country. It will not be possible to conduct a general election campaign—even if the Government want to do so—in which they do not make clear their attitude on the currency and on future developments in Europe.
I have no concern about that, because I and my party are perfectly willing to take those arguments head to head. Indeed, recent political experience in Romsey suggests to us that, when we take arguments head to head, success


sometimes follows. We are certainly prepared to argue the case not only for Europe, but for the single European currency.
I have never flinched from the view that constructive engagement in Europe is in the interests of the United Kingdom, but it must be a Europe which is outward looking and is willing to extend its membership to all those countries that share its values. If the treaty of Nice is consistent with those objectives, it will most certainly have my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 2000
Trustee Act (2000)
Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000
Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000
Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000

European Affairs

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 15 minutes on Back-Benchers' speeches.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) may have inadvertently misled the House in his comments about Baroness Thatcher's support for German reunification. Her memoirs make her views clear. She wrote:
I sent a message to President Bush reiterating my view that the priority should be to see genuine democracy established in East Germany and that German reunification was not something to be addressed at present.
She further noted:
If there was any hope now of stopping or slowing down reunification it would only come from an Anglo-French initiative.
In the light of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the right hon. Gentleman resumes his place, will he withdraw his statement?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is actually not a point of order, but a point for debate.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Reference has been made to the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw on 6 October, when he made bold and clear statements as to the British Government's attitude and his attitude towards the European Union. I shall devote some time to a discussion of parts of his speech, as they are relevant to the debate and to the deliberations on the treaty of Nice.
The Prime Minister made clear his vision of the EU; it is a bold one—that of a super-power. A super-power needs some of the basic characteristics of statehood; it must have central institutions that are powerful enough to take economic and military decisions quickly and effectively. Within its jurisdiction, there must be no seriously competing centres of power. It must have a currency, an army, a navy and an air force. Probably, it should have a flag and an anthem. It needs a fairly harmonised system of justice. And it needs law enforcement and perhaps a constitution.
If we apply some of those characteristics to the EU over the past 50 years, the EU is not doing too badly. It is moving along nicely towards the super-power of the Prime Minister's ambition. The EU has central institutions; it has a Commission, which acts as the imperial civil service. Indeed, the Prime Minister paid tribute to the Commission and extolled its virtues in his speech; he said that
it allows Europe to overcome purely sectional interests.
I take it that by "sectional interests" he meant the interests of the member states.
The EU has a Parliament. We tend to scoff at it and to be scornful of it, but as I have watched treaty negotiations over the past 30 years, I have noticed that the Parliament usually comes out of each negotiation with slightly enhanced powers.
The EU has a central bank. In effect, it has a supreme court. The only central institution that is a bit suspect is the Council of Ministers itself—a point to which I may return. The EU has a flag and an anthem. It has citizens—we are all EU citizens. It does not yet have a common system of justice or law enforcement, but there is an organisation called Europol and there will even be one called Eurojust—which will have not just one grand prosecutor, but a number of prosecutors.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will not the development of a super-power be profoundly dangerous for Europe? Do not super—powers tend to throw their weight around? Do they not normally have a preponderant military might? In the European context, is it not true that, from Bonaparte to the central powers, the third reich and the USSR, all super-powers have been extremely dangerous and aggressive?

Mr. Davies: There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says. I approach the subject simply as a Welsh constitutional lawyer, however, so I shall carry on.
There is something rather pompously called a European area of justice. I understand that it is designed to deal with cross—border crimes—the type of crimes that are referred to in the United States as federal.
As we know, the EU has a single currency and a centralised monetary system. In fiscal policy, it has considerable jurisdiction over the expenditure side; on taxation—the revenue side—it is a little weaker. However, as we were reminded, it covers VAT, which is one of the two taxes that raise the most revenue in Britain. I could not go to the electorate of Llanelli and promise them that, as a Member of the House, I would want to repeal or substantially change VAT.
Of course, the EU is not there yet in relation to taxation; I do not expect that the vetoes will be given up at Nice. However, the pressures of a single market and a single
economy and the need to prop up the euro and make it more respectable on the foreign exchanges will, no doubt, lead to pressure to harmonise and co-ordinate direct taxation—as VAT is co-ordinated.
Then, of course, we have the European army. I use that term only as shorthand; there is no ideological reason why I call it an army. Basically, the French have won. I have sat on these Benches for years, admiring the way in which the French negotiate in the European Union. I have admired their intellectual power and their civil servants' ability. With a combination of charm and considerable intellectual ability, they have achieved their objective in the end, as they did with the single currency.
The question of the European army started when de Gaulle pulled out of the military committee of NATO and the French decided that they wanted an alternative. They worked and worked at their policy. They pretended that they wanted to go back into NATO, but of course they never did—they did not want to. They have won in the end because of a British Prime Minister. I do not know whether it was the heady Celtic winds at St. Malo, but the Prime Minister did what previous ones had refused to do: he went along with the French. There could be no European army without the British Prime Minister's agreement.
Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was extremely enthusiastic about the military capabilities. In his very interesting speech, he said:
Whatever its origins, Europe today is not just about peace—it is about projecting power.
I first heard the phrase "projecting power" years ago, when I was the Labour party's defence spokesman. I think that it was used by the captain of the USS Saratoga—an 85,000-tonne American aircraft carrier, then sailing through the Mediterranean. The Americans had 18 such ships then, but I think that they are down to 12 now. The phrase "projecting power" is part of the language of a military super-power. Super-powers with considerable military capability project power.
The Prime Minister is quite clear that he wants a European army, navy and air force to project power. We are not just talking about blue helmets and peacekeeping; we are using the expressions of a super-power with considerable military capabilities. I do not know where that power will be projected—we can leave that for another debate—but, no doubt, enemies can be found all over the place if need be. However, I know where the power comes from-the accumulated power of nation states. The power comes from the Parliaments and peoples of those nation states, because the centre will have to be strengthened to create the super-power. In effect, the nation state will have to become provinces.
Romano Prodi said that one could not have competing centres of power. Well, he knows all about provinces. I should imagine that he learned about them at his mother's knee. He was quite right because, if the centre is to have more power, the competing centres of power—the nation states—will have to give up their power to enable the super-power to be created. That returns me to the Council of Ministers, the draft treaty of Nice and the veto.
Once upon a time, far more policy matters were covered by vetoes, but the number has gradually reduced. The veto is the main weapon to protect the democracy of

the nation states—certainly in international organisations. Security Council members have a veto, as do those of the World Trade Organisation. The veto exists to protect their democracy in those international organisations, but the European Union is not an international organisation in that way; it has gone way beyond that.
The veto is no longer consonant with a move towards the central decision making that is needed to create the sort of super-power that the Prime Minister wants, so the veto will gradually have to go. Not all the vetoes will go at the treaty of Nice. The treaty lists 47 matters covered by the veto, and no doubt 15 or 20 will go, but most of them will disappear next time or the time after that.
A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary railed against the Euro-sceptics. I do not criticise him for not being present now—no doubt he will read the report of the debate. [Interruption.] The Whip is certainly present. I understand that the Foreign Secretary was a Euro-sceptic at one time, although he has, as they say, moved on since then. I remind him that Euroscepticism has a long tradition in Britain. The House will not be surprised to hear that the first Euro-sceptics were Welshmen—going back as far as the Welsh bishops of the fifth and sixth centuries, who were a pretty stroppy lot. If I were so bold as to coin a phrase, I would say that they were of Rome, but not run by Rome.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not, and has never been, a Euro-sceptic. I commend him on the speech that he gave in Warsaw; it was a clear expression of his purpose and objective. In that speech, he went further along the road of European integration than any other British Prime Minister since the days of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
I apologise for all this history, but I shall make one more historical allusion. In Warsaw, the Prime Minister crossed his own rubicon—that of European integration. It seems that he took the Government with him; perhaps he took the Army with him as well, but whether he will ever be able to take the British public with him across that fateful stream only time will tell.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In my opinion, the most important European issue that we shall face during the next few years is the enlargement of the European Union, which I wish to be carried forward as quickly and successfully as is reasonably possible. We have a very overcrowded European agenda now. We have made some progress towards completing the single market; we are on the way to enlargement; and we have also just heard the announcement of the European rapid reaction force. I shall comment on yesterday's announcement.
I shall take up the points that I am glad to say my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) described as being motherhood and apple pie for the Conservative party. I trust that they are motherhood and apple pie for the vast majority of Members. Those principles are that our basic defence is founded on our NATO commitments. NATO is at the heart of this country's security and that of the other countries of the western alliance. The second principle is that we firmly believe that the European ability to contribute to the NATO alliance should be strengthened. There has been a long-standing weakness in the NATO line-up. On the other side of the Atlantic, Americans have long said that


the European contribution to the defence of the alliance is inadequate and that something more like a dumb-bell and less like the current dependency arrangement is desirable, so strengthening the European arm of NATO has always been a policy aim.
Although we have made significant sacrifices in sovereignty to enter into the NATO treaty, the third backbone of our policy is that, apart from our NATO obligations, the deployment of British forces in pursuit of foreign policy objectives should always remain under the control of the British Government, answerable to Parliament, and that we do not commit our forces without British political decision making. That is the starting point, and it has been the basis of the serious way in which the Conservative party has approached defence and security policy for as long as I have been a member of it.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, because I know from experience that I am almost physically incapable of completing a speech in 15 minutes. However, I am glad to say that I am obliged to do so.
In 1992, we also embarked on a process of changing the nature of the NATO alliance. The end of the cold war produced an obvious change of circumstances and the previous Government, of whom I was proud to be a member, embarked on the process of evolving NATO towards a different shape. That also involved strengthening the European element. I regard yesterday's announcement as the latest stage in a protracted process of deciding how NATO should be shaped in future and how the members of NATO and some of its non-members in the European Community should contemplate contributing to their own security in different ways from those that we thought of at the time of the cold war.
My recollection and judgment of events is slightly different—I regret to say—from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). There has been a certain continuity of policy since we embarked on the changes, most notably in the Maastricht treaty. I always think that the House is at its best when there is a cross—party continuity on foreign affairs and defence. That is very difficult to achieve on European matters nowadays, but, given that the Conservative party takes defence so seriously, we should take a constructive view of what is happening.
The foundations that I mentioned were best secured by the Maastricht treaty, which I still think was one of the triumphs of my right hon. Friend's Administration. It clearly committed us to the development of a European foreign and security policy. One of the treaty's great achievements was that it was based on what we then called the pillared approach. Foreign and security policy would not be made subordinate to the European Union or the initiating powers of the Commission and it would not be subject to the European Parliament. That remains the case, and it is the basis on which policy has proceeded. That is why the developments today can be described as intergovernmental, with each Government perfectly entitled to decide whether they will contribute to the rapid reaction force that is being proposed.
I was in government throughout that period and we always contemplated producing something of this kind. I was not present at the Petersberg hotel in 1992 when the

Petersberg commitments were first discussed. However, it was obvious that we immediately embarked on discussing the circumstances in which European countries could maintain their own defence activity. They would do that if it was not in conflict with the approach of the Americans and in circumstances in which the American Government did not wish to participate.
European defence without American participation has been discussed fairly continuously ever since. The process was taken further by the St. Malo declaration, which is one that I think most of my colleagues would have liked to have made when we were in government. It plainly had to be an Anglo-French project, because the relationship of the French outside NATO was always a key problem. The process went further at the Amsterdam treaty, and at the Helsinki summit we took another step.
I do not complain about the time constraint on my speech, but it prevents me from outlining the history any further. However, history is a guide to how we should react to the latest turn of events. The views of my friend Lord Hurd of Westwell have already been cited and my views coincide with those that he voiced in February this year when he gave a lecture to the department of war studies at King's college, London. That was after the Helsinki summit, but before the recent commitment conference. In summarising the events, he said:
So what we are seeing now is an evolution of thinking which began to take shape eight years ago.
The proposals are fraught with problems and we have a long way to go. More evolution must take place, and the proposals will be fairly pointless unless there is a commitment to increasing the resources deployed in defence by many western European countries. However, I advise those interested in the issue to consider the proposals more constructively than some of the popular newspapers or my other former boss, Lady Thatcher, have been prepared to do. If there are weaknesses, let us address them. However, if we are preparing for government, I am rather alarmed by the idea that our first reaction is, "Up with this we will not put, and no more will we participate."
In a few months' time, I want there to be a Conservative Foreign Secretary and a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence. I wish them to be taken seriously and to have an influence on the foreign and security policy of the western alliance. The present proposals for a rapid reaction force are supported by the United States Administration, by our chief of staff, all our NATO allies, all our European Union allies who are not in NATO and some non-European Union NATO allies, too. When we take office, will we say that we shall withdraw from the commitment?
I do not want to depart too much from the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, and I accept that problems need to be addressed. There is a straight "tis-tisn't" argument about whether if we go ahead, it will duplicate the planning arrangements that already exist in NATO. There is no point in duplicating in an autonomous fashion NATO, planning and logistical arrangements. However, if there are problems, they should be tackled. That means engaging constructively so that a Conservative Government can be sure that whatever emerges is consistent with NATO, and that we contemplate action only when NATO has decided, following its normal rule of unanimity, that it does not want to be directly involved and when an American Administration do not want to commit troops.
Those circumstances could easily arise. They came near to arising over and over again during the Bosnian crisis that occurred when the previous Government were in office. The Balkans is an obvious example. It is not impossible that at any time—none of us knows when—fresh problems could arise in the Balkans. There could be civil war in Albania or Macedonia or a breakdown of law and order anywhere in that part of Europe. It is not certain that an American Administration of whatever colour would be willing to commit themselves again to that area of Europe. They would much prefer the Europeans to provide their own reaction forces. As we all know, the Europeans could not possibly do that without a great deal more investment and a great deal of American logistical support. However, that is the way we are going.
It is no good saying that President Bush might take office and the present Administration, which supports the proposal, may no longer be in place. I am not certain that a Republican Administration in Washington would be more averse to the proposal than the present one—quite the reverse. It is no good listening to all the hard-right, cold war warriors in America. The general message is clear: a Republican Administration would want Europeans to do more for themselves and they would be more reluctant to commit American troops to western European defence. They would expect us to behave accordingly.
I have left myself five minutes for what I regard as the most important issue—enlargement of the European Union. It is the big historic decision of our times. The most important event that has taken place on the continent since the war has already been mentioned. It was the end of the division, the collapse of the Berlin wall and the reunification—up to a point—of Europe. It is essential that our generation consolidates that by putting in place institutions that firmly bind in the nations of central and eastern Europe to parliamentary democracy, free-market economics and the political integration of western Europe that the European Union has represented until now.
We need to make progress. Although the Balkans is the most dangerous place in Europe, there are large areas of central and eastern Europe where we cannot rely just on the enduring nature of parliamentary democracy, liberal values, law and order and peace. We must do something to consolidate them.
As we have pressed towards enlargement, we have always contemplated treaty changes. Changes have to be made now because it will be impossible to achieve them once the number of states in the EU increases. Fortunately, there seems to be widespread agreement about that. An understanding that the size of the Commission will ultimately be constrained is inevitable. I cannot believe that any Member would oppose constraints on the growth of the Commission.
A reordering of qualified majority voting—so that the votes of the large nations, including ourselves, more accurately reflect our relations with the others—is essential. Indeed, I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon pressing for that at a Greek summit, where we were driven off it owing to the desire to get on with admitting the Swedes, Finns and Austrians. This time, we must achieve reweighting of qualified majority voting.
I agree with some of the criticism that other matters could be put off. I do not think much of this charter of human rights; it is quite unnecessary. It is a needless diversion, and I hope that we can get rid of it in every effective way.
There is a case for a major discussion about the future shape of the EU. Many people—not just Joschka Fischer, President Chirac and the Prime Minister, but Jacques Delors, Lord Hurd and plenty of others—have said that we need to define the competence of Europe and of nation states. All those people believe in a union of nation states. Somebody cited President Chirac—he is more vehemently in favour of the nation state than anybody in this Chamber, but firmly believes, as I do, in a union of nation states. The idea that he signs up to rapid reaction forces or to enlargement in order to create a super-state is quite bizarre. I know of no right-of-centre politicians across western Europe who want a super-state or see enlargement as paving the way for it.
I agree that the present Governments of the European Union have not addressed the key issues that will affect enlargement because they are too difficult—such as money, agricultural policy and structural policies. When I was Chancellor, I used to insist that we got on with enlargement but that the budget must be within 1.27 per cent. of gross domestic product. I do not want an enlarged European Union budget. Such matters are being ducked. I hope that our major effort will be to achieve all that and enlargement by 2003.
Are we to stand against all that if there is some minuscule extension of qualified majority voting? Do we not see the dangers of a Maltese veto, a Bulgarian veto or a Polish veto being added to the Greek veto and the French veto, which has frustrated me so often in the past? I hope that my Front-Bench team will reconsider the policy that any extension of QMV requires a referendum—while enlargement is held up and we give up constraints on the Commission and QMV. I personally hope that when we get into office, we will show that warm-hearted internationalism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said we always represent, and we will make a constructive contribution to the future of Europe and the western alliance.

Mr. Roger Casale: I start by making an observation that when European Union Heads of Government meet in Nice next week, they will be able to look back on 50 years of unprecedented peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. I say that because given the tone and substance of much of what we have heard from Conservative Members, with the notable exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), we can easily lose sight of the huge, positive role that the EU has played, and continues to play, in stabilising the post-war settlement in Europe.
To listen to Conservative Members, one would think that there is nothing good to say about the EU—today or in the past. However, if we look back over the broad historical sweep, from post-war reconstruction, throughout the cold war and during the post-Soviet transition since 1989, we see that the institutional architecture, which has included NATO, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and, crucially, the EU, has worked. It has played a crucial role in stabilising the international situation across Europe.
Against such huge EU achievements, Conservative party views will seem to many petty, opportunistic, ignorant of history and lacking any positive idea about the future. The image in my mind of Tory policy makers on Europe is of those standing on the shoreline, peering through the fog, isolated from Europe. The only thing that distinguishes them from King Canute is that they seem unable to determine whether the tide is coming in or going out.
Unlike the Conservative party, this Government and those meeting in Nice will recognise the role that the EU has played in promoting co-operation between European nation states and in producing 50 years of stability, peace and rising prosperity in Europe—a stability that is the result of peace; a prosperity that is the result of stability. There is no prosperity without stability, no stability without peace.
As well as that common understanding, those in Nice will meet in a common climate of constructive engagement, which is based on relationships that have been developed and worked on throughout the year. Governments of the centre left—there are many in Europe today—or of the centre right would be bemused by the tone, content and approach of the Conservative party, which has put itself outside the European mainstream and would not be seen as a credible or serious negotiator, should it ever be returned to power in this country.
So, let us be absolutely clear about the EU's achievements. That can give us great confidence in what it can achieve in future. Let us also be clear that the EU institutions of today are in urgent need of reform. EU enlargement makes reform both a practical and a political necessity.
We cannot celebrate more than 10 years since the fall of the Berlin wall without seizing the opportunity to unite the whole of Europe. Equally, we cannot say that we are in favour of enlargement without favouring the changes necessary to allow it. The Nice summit is the last opportunity to make the institutional changes necessary for enlargement without breaking the momentum for it, with all the consequent damage that would cause to the EU's relations with applicant states. Nice will be a test of member states' resolve to open up the EU to a wider membership and to introduce new members on equal terms to the EU fraternity of nation states. That is why it is so important that the Nice summit succeeds.
It is also important for the existing member states that there should be institutional reform at Nice and that the summit should succeed. Very often, in our rather parochial British debates, focused exclusively, it seems, on the relationship between the EU and Britain, we lose sight of the role that the EU plays in the wider international arena and the importance of giving the EU greater political weight in that arena—not so that that weight can be used against Britain, but so that the EU can play a positive and more forceful role in the international arena, be more powerful in our trading negotiations with the US, and be more influential in the necessary contribution that Europe must make to the reshaping of international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations, the World Bank and others. I want an EU that is more powerful in terms of its ability to act in international crises, with a common foreign and security policy that is backed up by its own defence capability. If we are to achieve that, the EU must

be reformed, not just for the sake of enlargement but so that it can succeed in the future in what it has been so well able to do in the past.
Part of the reform process concerns what happens in Brussels and Strasbourg. That is why the issues of the size of the Commission, qualified majority voting and the reweighting of votes are so important. We want change in those areas.
The British approach to the negotiations has been rational and discriminating. We accept that the Commission must not become too unwieldy. We are prepared to give up one of our Commissioners so that there are not too many following the admission of new member states. We want to encourage other large countries to do the same. We recognise the need for the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, so that the majorities in it more accurately reflect member states' populations. In this enterprise, an important democratic principle is at stake.
We want the extension of QMV, but not willy-nilly. We take a discriminating approach to that issue, too. In areas related to transport and the environment, for example, QMV must be extended, although we have said clearly that we will not give up the veto on taxation, border controls, social security and defence.
In other areas, the Government's approach has also borne fruit. We are not to have a binding charter of fundamental rights. We argued that it should be of a declaratory nature—a way to standardise people's existing rights as EU citizens. The British approach seems to be prevailing. Given the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe at the end of his speech, I am sure that that will give him heart. We should co-operate flexibly and be able to work together in shifting alliances within the EU framework to make progress in areas of particular interest and concern to Britain.

Mr. Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an insult to the House that for a long time there has been no member of the Foreign Office ministerial team on the Treasury Bench? Can you invite the Minister to come here and fulfil his responsibilities to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Whether or not Ministers attend these debates is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Casale: All these institutional changes are necessary, both to make the EU more efficient and better at achieving results, and to prepare the way for enlargement. I have tilked about institutional reform because much change is necessary at the heart of the EU in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Casale: I am keen to make progress because I still have a lot to say.
The EU's strength and stability come not just from what happens in Brussels and Strasbourg, but from the network of bilateral relationships in Europe and the intergovernmental aspect of the European institutional architecture. It is simply wrong to say that Europe is only
about what happens in Brussels and Strasbourg when many of the key decisions that affect Europe's future are being made in Paris, Madrid, Berlin, London and Rome. The Conservative party paints a completely false picture of the decision-making process in that respect.
Ideas such as the European defence initiative were not cooked up in Brussels, but have been a feature of Britain's bilateral relations with other countries in Europe, notably Italy, for some time. The defence initiative and the headline goal for defence capabilities in Europe were important features of the statement that was made at the end of the British-Italian bilateral Heads of Government summit last year. Our policy is that countries in Europe should make a greater contribution to Europe's defence and to joint defence efforts. Very often Britain contributes the lion's share, puts the most soldiers on the ground and picks up the tab. If enhancing defence co-operation achieves that objective of greater contributions from other countries, it must be viewed as good for Britain.
The European Union has been a unique and successful historical experiment. It continues to be a success. In the future, it can become a vehicle for the unification of Europe and a serious contender to share international leadership with the United States. It can continue to be a source of security and benefit for citizens of Europe, which is why I should like the social policy agenda, which will be discussed at the Nice summit, to be strengthened, particularly in industrial relations matters such as information for, and consultation of, employees.
The EU is in need of reform, and enlargement is turning that need into a practical imperative. None of us will deny the role that it has played in the past and its huge potential for good in future. I am delighted that our Government are playing such a strong, constructive role in reshaping the EU, making sure that its role in enhancing peace, stability and prosperity in Europe will be just as important in the years to come.

Mr. John Redwood: One of the Foreign Secretary's assertions is that the treaty and the negotiations in the run-up to Nice are not about extending the competence of the European Union. I hope that when the Minister for Europe replies he will answer my points.
Has the Foreign Secretary not read any of the papers? Has he not been to any of the discussions? He told the House that he wishes to block the proposals to take away our veto on taxation. Why does he need to say that? It is because our partners and the European Commission want to get much more power for the EU over our tax matters. He tells us that he wants to block certain social security proposals. Why does he have to tell us that? Again, because some of our partners and many in the Commission want more control over our social security matters.
The Foreign Secretary tells us that he wants to block proposals for common borders, a common frontiers policy and a common asylum policy. Again, why does he need to give us that reassurance, which is probably worthless? It is because he knows that the Commission wants much more power over those areas. He tells us that he will block any proposal to remove our veto over treaty changes. Even treaty changes are up for discussion in these

important negotiations. Some of the leading members of the EU on the continent and certainly in the Commission believe that even treaty changes should no longer be subject to the veto.
I hope that the Minister heard those points, because he will need to apologise for the Foreign Secretary, who dared to tell us that the debates in Nice are not about extending the EU's competence, whereas with their own words Ministers had to accept that our partners on the continent and the Commission believe that it is about extending the EU's powers and competence, which is why the Government may be forced into blocking some of the more outrageous proposals.
One of the things to which I most object in the Government's handling of the negotiations is the contempt that they show for the House and for anyone, inside or outside the House, who tries to ask them civil questions to elicit simple information about what, among the many proposals on the agenda, they think is in Britain's national interest and what is not. The Minister and his boss, the Foreign Secretary, declined to answer 50 questions that I tabled identifying each a the vetoes which the Commission and some of our partners think should be sacrificed, asking them what was the Government's position on each veto. Why is that a secret?
The Government say that there are some vetoes that we must give up in the national interest. Why will they not come clean with the House, and go through the 50 questions and tell us where they believe it is in our national interest to give up the veto? Why will they not come clean with the House about the vetoes that they rule out giving up? There are 50 proposals on the table. I was given a silly answer the first time that I asked the questions, and I was blocked from even tabling them when I tried to get clarification on the Government's approach.
Worse still, when I talked to a leading journalist from The Sunday Times, I was told that the newspaper had already been informed that the Government had conceded 17 of the 50 vetoes. A leading newspaper has been taken into that confidence, yet the House and the British public have not.

Mr. Rammell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I am afraid that I do not have time because of the limitation on speeches. The hon. Gentleman knows that I normally give way because I like debate—if only we got rather more of it from the Government.
The Government have refused to explain how it can ever be in the national interest to surrender more vetoes in the sensitive areas now up for grabs. It is no argument to say that because previous Governments surrendered vetoes in less contentious areas—which the Labour party certainly agreed with—it is now right to surrender vetoes in many more difficult and very contentious areas.
I urge the Minister to think a little about his experience of negotiating in the European Union. Many Conservative Members have had a lot of experience of negotiating in the Council of Ministers. The Minister must know, as we discovered, that if we have a veto in our pocket, we can often win for Britain. We either get what we want in the proposal, or we do not have a proposal at all, because we


turn it down or block it. Partners often then say, "Well, if it matters so much to you, we will go along with what you want." Otherwise, the proposal falls. It is better to have no proposal than to have the wrong proposal.
I well remember that if one is operating under qualified majority voting, one has to spend endless time and public money on lobbying, ringing people up and visiting them in the capitals of Europe, trying to build a blocking minority to stop an ill-thought-out proposal being passed. All that law is made behind closed doors; the cameras and the public cannot go in. Why is it done in that way? It is because Ministers do not want it to be exposed to public light.
Given the importance of these issues, and the fact that Ministers are legislating for 55 million or 60 million people in this country or for 350 million in the EU as a whole, that process should be opened up to public scrutiny. The public should be able to see what their directly or indirectly elected representatives are up to. The Government are legislating by stealth.
Creeping competence to Brussels has been happening over many years as a result of decisions made unilaterally by the Commission and the European Court and the Government's failure to engage against the power grab. However, since this Government have been going to Brussels, we have been witnessing not creeping competence but galloping competence. The EU is now advancing on every front. The plot is obvious for all to see. Only the Government refuse to see what is going on; everyone else understands clearly.
The leading politicians on the continent fully understand that the process is about creating not only a super-power, but a super-state to back up that power. They are honestly stating in their speeches that they want to create a political union; that they want that political union to have much more power over taxation in individual member states than it already has; that they want that union to have an army to project its power two and a half thousand miles away from Brussels to start with, and perhaps around the whole world as soon as they have the courage to take that step further. They are saying that they want common frontiers, common visas, common passports and a common immigration policy because it is a feature of a unified state that it decides who can come in, who must go and who can stay.
Those politicians are in favour of a single judicial system very unlike British common law and the system of civil justice in this country. They want to get rid of habeas corpus and trial by jury and change to a continental Napoleonic system of justice, with a European prosecutor and a European system of courts. The treaty of Nice includes making all British courts entirely subservient to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of First Instance. So full of themselves are they and so sure that they either have the power that they need or that they are about to get it, that the draft treaty even proposes that the European Court should do less and less—that Britain as a member state will no longer have the automatic right to go to the European Court of Justice itself, because all of the courts in Britain will be clearly subservient and will have to follow the words of the treaty and overall guidance laid down by the European Court.
I see Labour Members not wanting to understand that that is what is going on. I urge them to go and read the copious documentation about the proposals that appears

on other nations Government websites throughout the EU. Why is there nothing on the British Government website about which of the proposals they want and which they intend to get rid of? The Government are taking us into a super-state by stealth. They are deeply angry this week because they have been rumbled. Now, they are lashing out against the press because they cannot stand the truth. They do not like the fact that, even before they have sold out at Nice, people have read the documents and understood them all too clearly.
Everything is there in the speeches of President Chirac and of Mr. Fischer, the German Foreign Minister. It is all there in the speeches of successive Chancellors of Germany, both the late Chancellor Kohl—late in the political sense—and Chancellor Schröder. They want to have a political union and they want it to be a big power on the stage, so of course they want to go on to take away the remaining vetoes, even though they accept that they will not get all of them now. We all know, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, that the British Government will, no doubt, veto or remove something from the agenda, then come back to claim a great Euro-sceptic success. The British Government know that the British public do not like the current pace of integration, they think that it has gone too far already and they do not want it to go further. I am sure that Ministers will not return from Nice and claim a mighty triumph against further integration.
Another of the Foreign Secretary's remarks was particularly dangerous and misleading to the House. He said that there has to be a substantial sacrifice of power in the treaty of Nice so that enlargement can proceed. He went on to say something that is clearly false: that the Conservative party does not want enlargement. As has already been said, we all want enlargement, but we happen to believe that it is more sensible to lower the hurdles to admission by reducing the amount of law and regulation that new member states have to accept than to raise the hurdles ever higher. We think that it is more sensible to say to new member states, let us first try to bring together a few spheres—the Common Market matters—than it is to tell them that they have to agree to bringing together matters such as borders, foreign policy, armies, currency and economic policy as well.
We believe that the treaty of Nice is not about enlargement. It would be quite easy to agree voting patterns in the Council and the number of Commissioners—the two things that might need some adjustment on enlargement—without going through that massive agenda, getting rid of 50 vetoes and going through all the items in the parallel negotiations on the single army and the single European Government that European politicians are trying to build. We think that those efforts are getting in the way of enlargement and that if there had not been such a complicated agenda for Nice, we could have enlarged the Community by now. The delay has been caused by the Government falling for the proposition that a massive expansion of central power in Brussels—a big expansion of European government—is needed to enlarge the community. That is simply untrue—in fact, it makes enlargement that much more difficult.
We want to belong to a Britain that is global and modern in outlook—a Britain that understands that we need to be friends with and trade with not only EU countries, but the Americas, Asia, Africa and all the


continents and principal countries of the world. We believe that the treaty of Nice and the related proposals—the draft constitution called the charter and the European army—are the beginning of very big wedge in the friendship between Britain and the United States of America. That wedge will be driven ever deeper if the Government go along with the proposals. We believe that, far from helping enlargement, the treaty of Nice makes it more difficult for new applicant countries to meet the entry requirements. I believe that some in the EU have deliberately delayed the entry of those countries, because they think that it is not about free trade, but about grabbing power and territory from existing richer, western members.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what arrangements the Government are going to agree with our partners for the financing of the new enlarged union. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, it is most important that the own resources ceiling is not increased. It is also important that we do not lose the benefit of the significant and handsome budget rebate won by the former Prime Minister but one, Baroness Thatcher. Without that rebate, our membership of the club would have been extremely expensive. I hope that the Minister tells us how, in a world in which he has given away the veto on structural funds and thus our ability to determine any major aspect of structural funds and regional aid policy in this country, he intends to guarantee that we will still get a reasonable return of our money that goes into the Community, given that many poorer countries are joining and he does not appear to have done a good job of reforming the common agricultural policy.
The Government are already isolated on big economic issues because they have, rightly, kept us out of the euro so far—I wish I believed that they will always do so. They are not engaged in the big issues: they are not getting our fish back, nor solving agricultural and budget problems. They cravenly go along with the Commission's wishes, then try to mislead the British people into believing that they are not. There is no point in our saving the pound if we lose the country that goes with it. I hope that the Minister will do a better job at Nice than he has done so far.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Members of Parliament always wants to speak on the key topic of the moment, and that is certainly true of the subject of today's debate. I hoped that we would be able to have a rational and sensible debate, but I have just heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) citing foreign politicians from capital cities around the European Union who have a great integrationist agenda. He said that we should read Jacques Chirac's speeches. Well, I read a recent speech by Mr. Chirac in which he said:
I do not think that one can have a federal Europe—the creation of a United States of Europe is not realistic, because not a single nation is prepared to give up its identity.
That is the reality of the debate taking place in Europe. Whereas in the heyday of Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, there was a huge momentum toward political integration, that has gone off the boil. Now, there is a

different vision of a Europe of nation states, which is what we are trying to develop. Conservative Members have to face up to that reality.
Over the past few weeks, on the subject of Europe, we have witnessed our national newspapers publish misinformation, lies and distortion on a scale that seems designed to whip up mass hysteria. That sort of thing never ceases to amaze me, but I should have ceased to be amazed by now, because that is what happens in the run-up to every European summit, especially intergovernmental conferences. I believe that, even in their own terms, some of the anti-European newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph, go too far for their own good. At some stage the general public will say:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
They will rumble that more and more newspapers are partisan, blinkered and misleading propaganda sheets. It was not for nothing that Michael Foot once called the Daily Mail the forgers' gazette. Having got that off my chest, I will move on to the substance of the debate.
We are discussing the substance of the intergovernmental conference at Nice, especially the key challenge of enlargement. Apparently, an enlargement policy is supported by every political party represented in the Chamber. That is for two reasons: first, the policy is morally right—the countries of the former eastern bloc have gone through huge change and they should therefore be welcomed into the European Union; and, secondly, there is economic self-interest—moving from a single market of 370 million people to one approaching 500 million is clearly in the interests of British exporters and British jobs.
Given that there is consensus on enlargement, it is crucial that we introduce some momentum into the process. There is a real and palpable danger of massive disillusion within some of the former eastern bloc countries, which have gone through a process of economic transformation amounting almost to economic revolution. Massive sacrifices have been associated with that. There is a real danger that the peoples of those countries will feel that, having played by the rules and done what has been asked of them, the process of enlargement is being held up.
I am particularly concerned about the stance of the French and German Governments, who appear to be dragging their feet. I hope that the Minister for Europe will take that point on board. I hope that from the Nice IGC, or the Swedish summit in the middle of next year, we can arrive at a specific target date for the first of the former eastern bloc countries to join the EU. Without that, the process could slip off the agenda.
If we are to enlarge, we need a change in the decision-making procedures within the EU, which undoubtedly means an extension of qualified majority voting. That is not in key areas where we believe that the national prerogative of a national Parliament should apply, but in areas where we believe that QMV would be in our national interests. The point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Unfortunately, it is one that all too often does not come out in these debates.
Britain has a proud and successful record of winning the argument on QMV. My right hon. Friend said that, under the current QMV procedures, had the veto existed.



in 80 of the past 85 qualified majority votes, the British position would have been lost. The position that we were pursuing in our national interests would have been blocked by a smaller EU country. Those statistics have not been mentioned in the past week. That point needs to be made powerfully and clearly.
I am sick and tired of Euro-sceptics or anti-Europeans parading themselves as sole defenders of the British national interest. I believe passionately that their belief in isolationism and the constant no, no, no ill-serves the British national interest and the needs of British people, British jobs and British industry.
As for reweighting, the Nice IGC is presented as something that is catastrophically against the British national interest, yet under current voting procedures it is possible for the majority population within an enlarged EU not to be able to muster a blocking minority. That is unsustainable and undemocratic. As a result of the proposals that will be made at Nice, for the first time since 1973 there will be a relative change in voting strengths in the interests of Britain. There is no mention of those issues in our national newspapers and in our debate with the Conservative party.

Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: No. Other Members have not given way because we are subject to time limitation.
I shall move on to the European security and defence co-operation policy. The reaction of some of our national newspapers and that of the Conservative party during the past week has been astonishing and a complete misrepresentation of the facts. It is crucial that we revisit the facts. We are talking not about an instrument of collective defence, but about a peacekeeping humanitarian operation. We are talking only of the peacekeeping force being engaged when NATO and the Americans do not wish to be involved.
That is especially important given the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave yesterday to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) asked him what would happen if the rapid reaction force was committed in a certain part of Europe and there was then a major international crisis and NATO required our troops. Could we unilaterally withdraw our peacekeeping operation from the rapid reaction force and deploy it for NATO purposes? The answer to that question was an emphatic yes. That underlines more clearly than anything else that the rapid reaction force is hostile neither to Britain's membership of NATO nor to the security that NATO brings us.
NATO welcomes defence co-operation within Europe, as do senior, sensible and eminent Conservatives. Lord Hurd, the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, has already been quoted in support of the proposition—I do not remember him as the most fanatically Europhile Conservative politician—and his support has been echoed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The initiative has been supported also by the Americans. Madeleine Albright has supported

explicitly what the Government and the EU propose. Recently, William Cohen, the US Defence Secretary, who is a Republican, said explicitly—there was no equivocation:
Let me he clear on America's position. We agree with this goal—not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.
That is important. Over the past few days, I have heard Conservative politicians on the airwaves denying that that is where the American Administration stand. That point needs to be made.
There must be some honesty in this debate. Labour may be wrong on European defence co-operation, but I do not believe that we are. However, to suggest, as the Conservative party does, and as many national newspapers do, that we are imperilling the country's defence and security is beneath contempt. That suggestion ill-serves the important public debate that we should be having on the issue.
European defence co-operation is far from being contradictory to our membership of NATO. Without such an initiative, we would put the future holistic entity of NATO at risk. In the United States, whether we have a Bush or a Gore presidency, an increasing number of politicians are questioning the role of the US as the world's peacekeeper. They question why the US must constantly step in and sort out problems in Europe's backyard. There are certainly people in the US Administration and beyond it who are undertaking a strategic analysis that suggests that American priorities should be elsewhere in the world, and not within Europe. If we do not bolster our defence capability to police humanitarian operations, the Americans will be far less willing to support and help us through the NATO alliance.
Lady Thatcher has intervened in the debate over the past few days. That was put on the front page of The Sun yesterday and it was highlighted by the Daily Mail as something that was startling and unusual. A former Conservative leader attacking a Labour Government on Europe in the run-up to a general election does not strike me as shocking, amazing or surprising. We need to get real. With the intervention of people such as Lady Thatcher, we are seeing raw and not particularly enterprising party politics. It has nothing to do with Britain's national interests.
I should have thought that if there were any issues on which Lady Thatcher would lecture the Government, Britain's leadership on Europe would be the last of them. Let us not forget that her leadership on Europe was the key issue that led to her Conservative colleagues removing her from office—that is the historical reality—and she was undermined by Geoffrey Howe and other Conservatives on many occasions. If anyone is to lecture us on any issue, it certainly should not be Margaret Thatcher on what Britain ought to do to pursue its national interest in the European Union.
What is the condition of the Conservative party in the debate? I am not one of those politicians who believes that the Labour Government will be in power for ever—10, 15 or 20 years perhaps, but at some stage the Government will lose office. Were we to be replaced by a Conservative
party in such a condition over Europe, God help us all. The splits are still present and still fundamental. That was emphasised recently by Leon Brittan, who said that the
Conservatives have adopted policies that would gradually pull Britain out of the EU
and that those are "hazardous in the extreme."
The policy changes and lurches incoherently—from issue to issue, from day to day, from week to week. First we hear that every existing EU treaty is up for renegotiation, but the debate moves on when it is made clear that no EU Government supports that. Then we hear that there is to be a referendum on the outcome of the Nice summit. Although I listened carefully to the shadow Foreign Secretary, who spoke on the issue for five minutes, I am still not clear what is Conservative party policy and whether the Conservatives would commit themselves to holding a referendum on Nice.
Although the rhetoric is about moving into isolation and out of the EU, the reality is that, were a Conservative Government returned to office, they would not pull out into complete isolation, but would acquiesce grudgingly and have no influence whatever in the EU. We tried that. We tested it. It did not work.

Sir Peter Emery: With some sadness, I rise to speak. I deeply regret how many—too many—members of my party seem to be massively anti-European and against any advance on what is best for Britain in Europe. They seem to have forgotten that it has been Conservative party policy since the end of the 1939–45 war to press forward to a peacefully united Europe.
The continuation of that policy is easy to substantiate. Winston Churchill said:
We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved.
Harold Macmillan said:
We in Britain are Europeans.
With much more foresight, he said:
The talk about loss of sovereignty becomes all the more meaningless when one remembers that practically every nation, including our own, has already been forced by the pressures of the modern world to abandon large areas of sovereignty and to realise that were are now all inter-dependent. No country today, not even the giants of America or Russia, can pursue purely independent policies in defence, foreign affairs or the economic sphere.
Lastly, the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), rightly said that Britain has to be at the heart of Europe, playing a major role in trying to ensure that Europe and European policy will work best for Britain.
I am worried about areas of what appears to be Conservative policy. Let us consider economic and financial matters. Surely any Government of any political standing try to ensure that they pursue a policy that will strengthen the financial and economic structure of this country and do so by making a judgment, at any time, that such a policy would work to the benefit of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to claim that one must take no action at all for a limited number of years, even though taking action might to be Britain's advantage, is absolutely crazy.
One should consider the condemnation of the euro. Just before I came into the Chamber, I was given two sets of figures. At the end of January, the pound sterling stood against the dollar at 1.64. Today, it stands at 1.41, which is a 14 per cent. decrease. The euro has gone down against the pound from 61 to 59.7, which is a 2.1 per cent. decrease. That is not part of the argument that one often hears from Conservative Members. That condemnation suggests that all of Europe wants to work for a vast European state. That is so wrong as to show an absence of both understanding and any contact with the major parliamentarians whom one sees at so many international conferences.
I have just returned from a Berlin meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, and there is no way that German Members of Parliament will give up their country or have their financial and economic policies run by either the European Union in Brussels or the European bank. They would laugh at anyone who suggested that that is what Germany wants. Exactly the same is true of those parliamentarians who attend meetings of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and of the French.
Only the other day, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was with Mr. Védrine, the French Foreign Minister. I said to him, "How will the French like being just Europeans?" He said, "Don't be absurd. We will not give up being French. We can be French Europeans; you can be British Europeans. We will not ask Britain to stop being British." Somehow, those arguments are thrust to one side, and that worries me when I think of all that I have seen over my 41 years as a Member of the House. We have worked for greater co-operation in Europe, even though that was not obtained or established over centuries. Therefore, I must briefly discuss the European security and defence initiative. I shall try not to use all my 15 minutes.
Why dismiss the ESDI out of hand? European nations—supposedly our friends and allies—have spent much time working with Britain to see whether the ESDI might work. I am not saying that I know that it would, nor am I saying that I know that it would not. The ESDI should form an integrated part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and must be seen to be working within NATO. Indeed, my information is that those who represent the British Army on many of the NATO committees are exactly the people who will be nominated to work on the ESDI. Therefore, let us ask questions.
How will the burden be shared? Will France and Germany combined contribute only the same number of troops as Britain? If that is so, we must re-examine the matter. How is the finance to be broken down? We must examine that carefully. On more than one occasion on the Floor of the House, I have asked how the heavy lift of those troops will be organised so that they can play an active role.
There are sensible questions to be asked, which will not make our European allies and friends think that we are anti-European in everything that we do, but when we condemn out of hand everything European, they wonder what we are up to. I believe that they have a right to do so.
On the matter of Nice, of course I understand the need to retain the veto. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was right to say that if he has a power of veto, he is in a stronger position to


negotiate. Of course I understand that, but if a major enlargement of the European Union is to take place, so that it will include up to 27 nations, no one can believe that that can be done under the terms and conditions of Maastricht.
The idea that at any time a veto can be exercised by two or three nations against the wishes of the vast majority of the European Union does not make sense. We must find some way round, just as we must find some way round the number of Commissioners. The idea that Brussels can be run by 27 Commissioners all sitting at one time is nonsensical.
Aspects of the Nice treaty must be negotiated sensibly. I want the party of which I am so proud to be involved and attempting to assist in order to bring that about, rather than just knocking the Government because they are the Government. There are times in politics when one must rise above being on one side or the other and opposing everything. That is not what I have stood for in the House, nor would I advise that to any of the leaders of my party.
There are times when one must work for what is best for Britain. I believe that we must work, as I am positive is the wish of all the politicians whom I know in Europe, for a Europe of member states, not a Europe of one Government. That is not what is wanted. Anyone who believes that is on the wrong track.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in his passionate declaration of support for the Labour Government and their policies on Europe, although that is interesting to hear. I shall strike a rather different note.
Our debates on six-monthly progress in the European Union are like intermittent meetings of the Sealed Knot society, fighting the battles of 1972, 1975, enlargement, the euro, the Maastricht treaty and so on. Sometimes we swap uniforms. Sometimes each side stands on its head and fights on the opposite side to the one on which it was fighting just a few years ago. The arguments that we hear now from the Opposition would have been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench only 10 or 15 years ago—more effectively, of course.
It is nice to play a game of musical uniforms from time to time, but I do not want to go over old ground. I want to express my concern about the effect of the euro debate on my own party and the Government, and on British politics generally. The debate is like a Sealed Knot society event in a sealed Chamber—it does not produce strong echoes outside.
We are demonstrating a culture not of lies, but of half-truths, evasions and doublespeak, which destroy the credibility of the Government who articulate them and, at the sides, of the people who articulate them. We are giving people a diet of arguments that they know not to be true.
I do not think that the Government expected the hostile reaction to the proposed European army, so we are now engaged in a debate about when is an army not an army, and when is it Thunderbirds, perhaps with Lady Penelope saying in a guttural German accent, "Achtung, achtung!" It could be an international rescue force, not an army at all.
We move on to the argument about when is a Bill of Rights not a Bill of Rights—when does it have a purpose and when is it just a leaflet to be read and taken into account; when does a Bill of Rights have force, when is a constitution binding and when is it not?
When is economic damage a gain? People are told what they know instinctively is not true. That has been the nature of the euro argument for a long time, and if it goes on, people disbelieve everything that politicians say to them. The argument springs from the origins of our commitment to the European Union. We went in because the British ruling class felt that the country was ungovernable. It had failed to deliver the economic growth that other nations were enjoying, so it might as well hitch itself to the bandwagon of Europe.
The Foreign Office particularly, always seeking a stage to strut on, from which to lecture the world and demonstrate its own effortless superiority, saw Europe as providing that stage. A grateful European peasantry would defer to our superior trade mantle. Things did not quite work out like that, and the institution did not suit us. We entered on terms that were disadvantageous.
The recent memoirs of Sir Con O'Neill—an appropriate name, as far as I can see—made it clear that the purpose of the negotiation was to get in at all costs and ignore every difficulty. That meant that we accepted an extremely disadvantageous settlement and we have been negotiating uphill all the way since, trying to make good ground that we should never have abandoned in the first place, and dealing with an institution in which there is a remorseless drive to ever-closer unity.
We are reluctantly dragged behind, grumbling and explaining, and the electorate get fed up of the spectacle. They do not like it. It offends their sense of national dignity that we should always be in that situation and always be persuaded to go along by the diet of half-truths. Every Government come in committed to a new start, a new relationship with Europe. After the 1975 referendum, Harold Wilson promised a new start. Even Margaret Thatcher came in promising a new start in 1979. John Major came in promising to put us at the heart of Europe, and we came in 1997 with a naive enthusiasm for Europe. It always turns to disappointment, because of the balance of the situation.
Now I see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, in another incarnation, was a stalwart defender of Euro safeguards and a stalwart opponent of the euro, becoming the euro's strongest supporter and deploying the full economic expertise of the Foreign Office—I am being sarcastic—to tell us how good the euro will be.
The euro is a classic example of the process. We are told that it will offer economic advantages, but clearly it will not, because Britain's trading patterns are different, we are out of kilter and our cycle is different. The euro is undemocratic because it substitutes oligarchy—rule by a central bank—for democratic choice by the electorate, the ability to throw out the Government and the ability to manage our own economy for our purposes. Clearly, we could not go in at the present exchange rate or valuation, yet the argument is still put as a matter of religion.
Euro-enthusiasts must present membership of the euro as a benefit. It will bring stability, we are told. The only instability, however, is the continuous and remorseless decline of the euro. Sterling has been remarkably steady, while the euro has declined against it in what amounts to
a competitive devaluation that benefits the economy and industry of the countries that have adopted it. We are told that 3.5 million jobs depend on continued membership and that, if we do not join the euro, member countries will discriminate against us and inward investment will stop. It is curious that inward investment remains so high. Current investment into European markets could go to any other country, including those with the euro, but it does not; it is still coming here.
We are given arguments that present the direct opposite of the reality. Euro supporters, finding that they are losing the argument, say that its critics want to come out of Europe altogether. When presented with that argument, we should make a cool appraisal of the enormous benefits of joining, but we are never told what they are. Over the years, I have tabled questions asking to be informed of them in quantifiable terms. The cost is about £4 billion net against us each year and the trade deficit has been constant since we joined. It is narrowing now only because the oil price has trebled. We face the burden of agricultural protectionism and the incubus of French positions on every international trade negotiation that we enter.
The common fisheries policy is now reaching its full fruition in the decimation of stocks by over-fishing. That happened because it is a political policy, not a conservation policy, which has been deeply damaging to our fish stocks. We face also the threat of carousel retaliation from the Americans because of a policy that we do not support—indeed, we are opposed to it.
What are the benefits of the organisation? As the common external tariff is now only about 4 per cent. and could easily be overleaped if we were out, being out might have the advantage of giving us control of our own policies. However, I do not want to stray into such arguments. My point is that yet another set of fallacious arguments has been produced by the euro enthusiasts, so the electorate is fed a diet of double-talk and deceit.
What is the difference between a super-state and a super-power? One is not possible without the other, but we are expected to believe that there is a difference. What is an army? Is the European army an army or not? Mr. Prodi seems to think that it is an army, but the Government tell us that it is not, and that it involves merely a few troops on holiday from time to time, wearing stars on their uniforms. Is the declaration of rights enforceable? It will certainly be taken into account by the European Court.
Should European countries proceed with a narrower union for a few, and, if so, should a price be exacted? Such a union would recreate the old distinction between the Common Market and the European Free Trade Association. We shall be on the EFTA side of that argument. In such a position, we should be able to negotiate rights and agreements in respect of arrangements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. Why are we not negotiating or insisting on reciprocal benefits for ourselves if the inner core is going to proceed?
I am an enthusiast for enlargement as it would weaken the European institution. We are even told, however, that we cannot have it without the Nice treaty. Is a European public prosecutor, a European constitution or monetary

union necessary for enlargement? That is the machinery of nation building and of constructing a super-nation and is unnecessary for enlargement. We would be only a peripheral influence in such a Europe—we always are. There have been some changes, but the Franco-German coalition is still dominant in Europe. Even if we agreed to all those concessions in order to gain enlargement, its achievement would be uncertain. The German Lander are turning against it in a big way. Germany is reconsidering the policy and France has never been enthusiastic, so if concessions are made as a gateway to enlargement, it will remain doubtful whether that will be achieved.
The burden of my complaint is that we are always asked to believe that the evidence of our own eyes, instincts and knowledge is wrong. We are asked to believe that damage is benefit, that the European army is not an army, that a super-power is not a super-state and that a surrender of the veto is not a loss of power. All that nonsense is being fed to an electorate who are instinctively cool to sceptical and very doubtful about the project. That makes the diet of rubbish even more strenuous, because, when the assertions fail to convince the electorate, they become louder, bigger and ever more damaging. I believe in truth in advertising, marketing and sales, but I would like to see some truth in the euro argument, from which it has so far been completely excluded.
That brings me to my worry about the effects on government and politics. I do not like to see the euro argument become a stalking horse for personal disagreements in Cabinet. That discredits the party. I do not like the fact that we are now reaching a point when easy charm is no longer enough when hard decisions have to be made and sold to the people. I am especially worried about the diet of half truths. The Government are a force for good, for change, for building a better society and for redressing social imbalances. Any Government have only a limited degree of credibility to enable them to carry out their mission. If we damage our credibility by using a diet of half truths and distortions to justify a policy that is comparatively unimportant and does so little to advance the lot of the people of this country, we will damage the achievement, future prospects and credibility of the Government. That I do not want to do.

Mr. David Curry: I have heard repeatedly this afternoon the expressions "super-state" and "super-power", both of which I believe to be largely mythical. The problem is that, in many ways, Europe is not capable of being a super-state. People talk about an unremitting, purposeful action towards a common goal, but what I see when I look at Europe in practice is far too often incoherence and incapacity, failure to reconcile conflicting ambitions and the fudging of aims. That is Europe in practice and not the Europe of myth.
Europe today has a weak Commission that lacks credibility. Many member states have coalition-ridden Governments and find it difficult to declare lines of action. France has a problem dealing with the cohabitation of a President and Prime Minister of opposite and competing parties, both of whom want to be the next President. Germany has a federal system in the real sense of the word, and the Länder jealously guard their power. That does not make up the recipe of ingredients that is required for a super-state. Kohl, Mitterand and Delors are


either dead or politically buried. We do not have such giants now; we have third-way minnows. They are not the stuff of which super-states are made and I do not think that their ambitions reach to such heights.
Of course, speeches and recommendations can be laid side by side or end to end to give the impression of a strategy. However, we forget that, while it is good politics in Britain to sound as euro-sceptical as possible, it is good politics on the continent to sound as pro-European as possible. That means that the declamatory differences often hide practical approaches that are much closer together in reality than from the rhetorical point of view. If people are judged by what they do as opposed to what they say—we have heard a great deal today about what people say that they want to do—we will find that some of the differences narrow.
If Europe is seeking to act as a super-state, the recent sugar proposals demonstrate that it is doing so in a jolly hamfisted way. There is hopeless incoherence between proposals made by the agricultural directorate and those from the external trade directorate, and that causes problems for everybody. If that is not incoherence, then it is difficult to find an adequate definition of the word.
It is equally daft to talk about a super-power. Super-power comes from states. However, the EU is not a state, but a permanent negotiation between states. The United States can, to use a phrase that has been used in this Chamber, project the forces across the world. The President does not have to do that after a debate with a conference of Republican or Democratic governors. EU decision making is protracted, slow and even dislocated.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I do not wish to labour the point, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used the phrases "super-power" and "projecting power".

Mr. Curry: I am objecting to that silly expression. Where the EU has a common policy and a mandate, it has a powerful role to play. However, its super-power status is limited, specific and occasional.
We need to think about how the EU develops and with what mechanisms. There is a real opportunity for ideas that put the market at the forefront and insist that institutions should enable the market to function as the driver of competitiveness and opportunity. My own Front Bench is missing a trick on market opportunity because policies based on the concept of rolling back rather than defining a different way of advancing will not be listened to.
There is an obsession with building a Maginot line or ne plus ultra. The terms of almost pathological dislike in which our policy is couched suggest that Europe is not far short of the evil empire but, unlike it, presumably incapable of redemption, which makes it inevitable that we will be seen as wholly reactive and largely destructive. In other words, there is a market opportunity for defining a different way forward on Europe. However, we are not taking that opportunity because we are not attempting to make an intelligent definition.
The market is driving the European Union in a way that would have been inconceivable 20 or even 10 years ago. French industry is a global player and German restructuring is now wide open, as the single currency has helped to unleash a market-driven revolution. We need to embrace that market-led liberalisation and renounce the

curious mentality that portrays an obviously successful country such as the UK as besieged, blockaded and threatened in some form of neurotic lack of confidence.
That is my main objection to what some Opposition Members say, which does not reflect the Britain that I see when I look about me. The proposal to pick and choose among EU measures is particularly unhappy. In any case, any treaty changes must be ratified by the House before they apply. The same mechanism reproduced across Europe would bring the single market—which, after all, is the thing that we claim to care about most—to the point of disintegration. I agree that that market is a crucial ingredient, perhaps even the most important thing in Europe. French competition policy on energy, German exposure of industry to restructuring, and takeover policies are crucially important, and would make it easy for member states to say, "Sorry, we do not like your policies."
If people do not like the federal vision of Europe, they should stop it, not by putting sleepers on the railway track, but by providing an alternative. The federal vision will persist if it is not offered competition, but it has got to be capable of commanding the understanding of all the partners in that negotiation. The Government have a huge responsibility for that because of their persistent failure to confront the issues. It is no good whingeing about the press, which only holds a mirror to the Government's own hesitations and dissensions.
The Government have a policy of relentless drift. Their "Don't mention the euro" comes from the "Fawlty Towers" school of political leadership, and the Government's engagement is as minimalist as the taste in home decoration of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the Chamber, debate in Europe is all too often a case of Basil Fawlty meets Dan Dare.

Mr. Cash: Who is the Mekon?

Mr. Curry: Discretion forbids me to answer that. Reality tends to be the loser when we have comic strip exchanges across the Chamber.
What are the priorities for the European Union? Enlargement, of course, followed by liberalisation and competitiveness. Enlargement matters the most and, more than anything else, the EU should stand for liberal, political and economic values. Of course, we could enlarge without treaty changes. However, the EU needs to function after enlargement, which is what those treaties are about that. There is a perfectly good case for extending qualified majority voting. I cannot conceive that, on the basis of changes in qualified majority voting—perhaps even negotiated and accepted by a Conservative Government, since there would not be a treaty to put before the people had we not accepted such voting—we would then say that we were going to go to a referendum and risk having that work overthrown. Those in opposition must be careful that people believe that, when in government, they would do what they say. I have an inkling that this issue is one that might not be so acceptable in government as it is in opposition, and for that I am profoundly grateful.
Of course, there are big issues that are not being addressed at Nice. Agricultural policy is in desperate need of reform and, although there is a process for doing that, it is too slow. I agree with my right hon. and learned
Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that we should not touch the old resources ceiling, which imposes an important discipline on reform and retrenchment. We need to reform the arithmetic of qualified majority voting. The qualified majority now represents 58 per cent. of the population of the EU—I think that I am right about that. When the treaty of Rome was made, that majority was 70 per cent. At the very least, one needs to be sure of a comfortable majority of population and states to command a qualified majority.
I am not impressed with the proposals for a new chamber for national Parliaments, which would add to institutions and limp along pathetically and ineffectively. It is ironic that, in this Chamber in a national Parliament, we have spent most of the past two weeks lamenting the loss of parliamentary authority and the growth of direct action. However, we seem to think that, by adding another parliamentary institution to the European Union, we would address what we keep describing as a democratic deficit. I do not believe that that would work.
We must be careful to acknowledge the case for strong institutions in Europe, as we have a vested interest in making sure that they are strong. Markets need gendarmes to keep them free. We have a big interest in a Commission committed to driving forward liberalisation in areas such as e-commerce, local loop unbundling and competition policy. It is interesting to note that, although Mario Monti, the Competition Commissioner, suggested the repatriation—if I dare to use that word—of certain decision-making areas in competition policy, the Confederation of British Industry said that that is an exceedingly bad idea. That make me think that, when one starts to look at individual policies, reactions are different from when they are seen as part of a collective project.
If we are not going to create new institutions, it would be wonderful if the EU could occasionally abolish institutions. The Economic and Social Committee is utterly useless in every regard. Its abolition would save a large sum of money and have no negative effect. The Committee of the Regions is a more recent creation, but disappeared to the far side of the moon, and no one has heard a word on anything about it since it came into being. Its loss would not be noticed for a considerable period. Abolishing those Committees would be a wonderful gesture to show that Europe is capable of reducing as well as simply adding to its institutional galaxy.
We talk about unelected dictators, thinking about what, at the moment, is a fairly weak and demoralised Commission. However, we must remember that the Councils, with their elected politicians, often do the most damage. I have two proposals, one of which is modestly ambitious and one genuinely modest. I am tempted by the notion that we have to find a way of defining or producing an answer to the question "Where does it end?" I hesitate to use the word constitution, but we must consider the relationship between member states, central authority and national authorities. However, negotiating that would simply be a microcosm of the whole negotiation on Europe and there would be different purposes and objectives. Whether we like it or not, the EU is work of progress. It is difficult to answer the question "Where does it end?" because so much depends on need and

circumstances and it is difficult to define a fixed destination. Given the nature of the debate in Britain, we should give some thought to that matter.
My other proposal is much more modest. In a week or two's time, we will debate the Queen's Speech. We will parade into the other place and the Queen will deliver her speech. We will come back to this Chamber and we will debate it. There is no equivalent to that in Europe. I believe that the Commission should annually set out a draft programme of major proposals—the equivalent of primary legislation: a President's programme if you like. That should be sent to national Parliaments for comment and advice. They should give their comments and advice before the Commission publishes the proposals as a definitive programme of work.
National politicians in their own Parliaments—not transferred to some new super-Parliament—need a stake in the process. They would be obliged to confront the reality of individual proposals and European activity. I am convinced that, if national politicians were to examine the merits of individual programmes in the light of the concerns of their own country and their own constituents, they would rapidly identify areas on which there was consensus and in which European action made sense and was necessary, just as they would rapidly identify areas in which they felt that the case for European action had not been made. That would give us a stake in the process.
Such a system would enable us to have an intellectual and policy relationship with the central organisms of the European Union. It would be a positive way of creating a new body of stakeholders in the process with an interest in making things work. They would see Europe in a pragmatic way—the United Kingdom has sometimes been condemned for that, but it is genetically inevitable—rather than dismiss the whole because they dislike some parts of it, as a result of which we give an impression that is sometimes false and different to that which we intend to convey when we consider the details.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Whatever else is true about the European Union, there is certainly continuing pressure to speed up and intensify economic integration. Unfortunately for the European Union, some of the wheels are coming off the euro currency project at this very moment. Surely when wheels are coming off it is time to slow down or stop and think again possibly about the direction but certainly about the machine.
No doubt such heresies will not be aired at Nice, at least publicly, but in private discussions in the bars and restaurants some people will surely discuss the problem. The negotiators cannot all be so self-deluding as to pretend or believe that there is no problem.
The euro was flawed from the start. It has fallen in value by a third against the dollar since inauguration, and attempts to prop it up have failed. There are no signs of recovery. Then there was the Danish referendum. In spite of overwhelming political and media pressure and an 88 per cent. turnout, the Danish people voted to stay out of the euro, and rightly so in my view. Their political leaders glossed over that defeat by saying that in any case the Danish krone was shadowing the euro. That is the crucial point. The Danes are choosing and managing the value of their currency. They can change their policy when they wish, according to the needs of their economy.


They can appreciate or depreciate their currency—perhaps with difficulty, but they can do that outside the euro, whereas they could not do so inside it. Denmark has one of the strongest economies in Europe, with an excellent welfare state to which we in Britain would do well to aspire.
Ireland plunged into the euro with enthusiasm, and has ridden a roller coaster since then. It now has an overheated economy with an uncomfortable rate of inflation. I am not by nature a deflationist, but Ireland's economy could well do with a little cooling at this point. Higher interest rates and a small currency appreciation would be helpful, but those options are closed off by euro membership. Ireland is staring heavy fiscal deflation in the face. That is not a happy prospect for the Irish people and the Irish Government. I imagine that the Irish economy is not helped by substantial net transfers to its economy, which give an added kick to domestic demand.
Perhaps the most significant country inside the euro is Germany, which entered the single currency at an overvalued parity. It needs to devalue a little against fellow member states to promote economic growth, but it cannot now do so.
A year or so ago, Janet Bush, writing in The Times, speculated that Germany might even leave the euro temporarily, devalue and go back in at a later stage. I do not think that that would be terribly popular with other member states, but it was a suggestion. At that time I thought it was highly unlikely, but things have moved on.
The Danish referendum result has also boosted opposition to euro membership in Sweden and Britain. Both have promised a referendum to their people, who are unlikely to support euro membership in the foreseeable future. There is also substantial scepticism about the single currency even inside the euro zone. Apparently, many Germans are upset that they were not permitted a referendum on the euro.
I have had the pleasure of meeting groups of Finnish journalists, and we have discussed Europe at great length. 1 asked, among other things, why the Finns did not have a referendum. One of the journalists said with amusement, "Well, we couldn't give them a referendum because they would have voted the wrong way." I suspect that may be true, although views change over time.
Most interesting of all is that the strongest economies in the European Union—Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom—are outside the eurozone. Is it not time to examine the whole euro project? Lord Desai, a euro enthusiast, has said:
The euro is collapsing before our eyes.
Those are his words, not mine. He suggests that the European central bank should suspend all trading in the euro, and the separate currencies should be floated against each other for some time before reuniting in an attempt to relaunch the euro at some point in the future. I agree with the first part of his suggestion, but I think that the second is highly unlikely. If the euro unravels, as it may do, we could see the end of the euro project as we now know it, and we should be looking at alternative economic arrangements between EU member states.
The euro is a very sick duck—if it is not yet a dead duck, it is moving in that direction. It is time intelligently to consider alternative economic arrangements in Europe, and I hope that our Ministers and others will discuss, privately at least, what those alternatives might be.

Mr. David Atkinson: I want to raise two matters: first, the proposed EU charter of fundamental rights, and, secondly, the Europe we should foresee in the longer term, given the ambitions of a growing number of countries to join the EU.
I wholly share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that the charter would represent an extra burden on British businesses and would threaten jobs. That would happen whether or not the charter were incorporated into a treaty. Even if it were not legally binding—as the Minister for Europe assured the House it would not be in yesterday's debate in Westminster Hall—it would, as many experts have said, inspire and influence the European Court of Justice and domestic courts.
My right hon. Friend and others have quoted a large number of people, including President Prodi and the Minister's French counterpart, Mr. Moscovici—I can spell his name as well as pronounce it—who have a completely different interpretation of the charter to the Minister.
My concerns go wider than the effect of the charter on business. It would unnecessarily complicate the working of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as it would surely do to our own courts as they take on the monumental task of implementing the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European convention into British law, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said.
The Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe fears that, as a result of the charter, there will be two rival systems of human rights protection in Europe. Because Europe will always be larger than the Union, and will include a certain number of non-member states, the Committee of Ministers warns against new dividing lines in Europe. However, it proposes a solution to the problem—accession to the European convention by the European Union.
That approach has repeatedly been backed by the other institutions involved: the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. It would allow the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to apply the convention without being inspired by the proposed EU charter.
When the Minister replies, will he make it clear that the Prime Minister will veto any attempt to make the charter legally binding? Were the charter to be agreed as a political document that would influence the courts—the Foreign Secretary suggested that that would happen at Nice—would the Prime Minister insist that the EU accede to the European convention, as has been proposed by the Committee of Ministers, of which he is a member?
That leads me to my second point. It is clear that, in the foreseeable future, the EU will include more than half the countries of Europe, given the applications that it has now accepted. That is bound to lead to questioning of the need for, and the future of, the other pan-continental institutions. Indeed, one—the Western European Union—is already being amalgamated into the EU. It must also be said, however, that both the enlargement of the EU and the incorporation of the WEU are taking place without much thought about the overall European architecture of the 21st century. There is no clear vision of how we
should—let me use the title of a report endorsed by the Council of Europe in January last year—be "Building a Greater Europe Without Dividing Lines".
Europe today has six pan-continental institutions. Five were established as a result of the last world war, or in response to the cold war: the Council of Europe, the WEU, NATO, the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The sixth, the Commonwealth of Independent States—which still exists, without being very effective—emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Each of those institutions is either composed entirely of Council of Europe member states, or composed of a majority of them. Each is committed to the principles of the Council of Europe: parliamentary democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Two of them exist to secure and defend those principles by force. I refer to NATO and the WEU, although now the EU will be involved. Each is served by its own parliamentary assembly, composed—except in the case of the European Parliament—of delegates from the Parliaments of member states.
At the beginning of the 21st century, it is unlikely that the existence of those institutions will continue indefinitely. Given that the next inter-governmental conference will not take place for several years, next month's Nice summit should embark on a debate about the future institutional architecture of Europe.
I believe that the Council of Europe has already proposed a framework for that debate, and for the design of the common European home that we should be envisaging. As I said, in January last year the Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a report entitled "Building a Greater Europe Without Dividing Lines". It emphasised the need for the European Union to be recognised as the natural partner of the Council of Europe.
During the same session, the Assembly adopted two other reports. One, entitled "Europe: a Continental Design", emphasised the pre-eminent role of the Council of Europe, and said that it provided the most appropriate political framework as the pan-European forum of the future. The other report, entitled "The European Political Project", stressed the importance of the parliamentary dimension in the increasing co-operation and integration between European states in which the Council of Europe and the European Union are the main institutions. It pointed out that a democratic deficit exists in the work of the European Parliament.
To his credit, the Prime Minister has recently acknowledged the existence of that democratic deficit. In his speech in Warsaw, he referred to the need for a second chamber for the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) did not like that idea. Last week, the German Foreign Minister also called for a European Parliament of two chambers, one elected and the other comprising representatives of national Parliaments.
The concept of a second chamber composed of members of national Parliaments is one that several of us have advocated for some years. Some are now giving it prominence today, suggesting that it is the key to maintaining the WEU Assembly as the parliamentary dimension of the new European security and defence identity—something that the European Parliament cannot, of course, assume. In that case, the upper chamber of the

European Parliament would have to include MPs from 13 states that are not members of the EU, but that are associated with the WEU. It does not need much foresight to overcome that obstacle, as most of them are applying for membership and are likely to join the EU in due course.
Much work is being undertaken in Europe to promote democracy, free elections and human rights in pursuit of a more stable and secure continent and the avoidance of conflict, but it is being done in duplicate, in parallel and, sometimes, in confusion by several institutions: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Even the CIS has its own convention on human rights and provides peacekeeping forces in several areas of past and potential conflict. Therefore, it is no longer good enough to say that all those institutions have complementary and useful roles to play and that some could not be merged because they include non-European states such as the United States of America, Canada and five Asian republics of the former Soviet Union.
The time has come to consider how two or three of those institutions can be more effective than six. I see no reason why the European Union should not eventually be open to all Europe, including Russia and the Ukraine. We should have the vision to say that, but because it is the Council of Europe that Winston Churchill had in mind when he referred to a kind of United States of Europe; because it is the Council of Europe that is the home of the European Court of Human Rights, which is already Europe's supreme court; because it is the Council of Europe that is the home of the European convention on human rights, which is, in effect, the constitution of Europe—it is accepted by 43 member states—the Council of Europe should be the pre-eminent pan-continental institution, and its Assembly, made up of Members of national Parliaments, should be the second chamber of the European Parliament. I hope that that debate can be commenced under "any other business" in Nice next month.

Sir Raymond Whitney: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) makes some interesting suggestions on the institutional structure of Europe, based on his long experience. Those proposals should be carefully considered by the Government and, indeed, by our party.
For 40 years or more, my party has been the one that has promoted Britain's active and positive participation in what we now call the European Union. The role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, is well known and needs no embellishment. The contribution of Baroness Thatcher—which has not been properly recognised, certainly by Labour Members—for example in advancing the single market, deserves full recognition. Then there was the contribution of my right hon.
Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), not least with his introduction of the concept of subsidiarity, which should be important to all of us.
The important point I draw from that brief history is that, within the ranks of our party, throughout those 40 or so years there has been dissent. Although the mainstream had a positive and constructive disposition towards the European project, we have always had within our ranks


those who were hostile. However, in those years a number of those who were hostile enjoyed Front-Bench positions, be it in opposition or in government.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asserts very strongly that he too is very much in favour of Britain being in Europe, and we are all familiar with the "In Europe, not run by Europe" slogan. I certainly accept the case that he makes. Sadly, however, that does not seem to be true of the country generally, for reasons that are very familiar to all hon. Members who regularly attend what sometimes seem to be a weekly performance from the House's repertory of European debates.
Within the ranks of Conservative Members, as in the ranks of Labour Members, there are those who wish that we had never entered the European Union in the first place and want us to get out as quickly as possible. Although not many hon. Members will admit to it, that is the truth. The trouble—which I should like to dwell on in a moment—is that they make so much noise, and so much fire and brimstone comes from them, that the electorate is in danger of perceiving that the Conservative party is full of and dominated by those who are hostile to our membership of Europe.
The anti-Europeans are encouraged by, and play, the anti-European press—about which many hon. Members have spoken—just as the anti-European press plays them. Silly stories are written about the abolition of this or that, the straightening of bananas, the squaring of tomatoes, and all the rest. Such stories play in village halls across the country, and so the spiral continues, causing great damage to the Conservative party and to the country. It is a very dispiriting and negative alliance.
We have reached the dangerous point at which we seem to be suggesting that everything that comes out of Europe, whatever its objective, is bad. We also seem to be giving the impression that we think that continental Europeans are stupid, evil and dedicated to doing down the United Kingdom. Some people seem to be giving the impression that they believe all three of those propositions, none of which is true. It is certainly damaging that such an impression should be given abroad.
We also give the impression that we think that Europe is populated by politicians who want to hand over political control of their country to some exterior force or superior entity based in Brussels or somewhere else, and that they cannot wait to extinguish their own countries' identities. Although I accept that that view is held by only a minority, as I said, the smoke, fire and mirrors that they use enable them to give the impression that it is a majority opinion within the Conservative party.
The great majority of people in Europe share the type of pragmatic vision that the Conservative party—as a group, not every member—has held for 40 years. The vision is of nation states collaborating when it is in their interests to do so, and retaining national autonomy in spheres in which that is much more appropriate. We all know that that is a new and a difficult concept, and that the nature of the concept is one of the problems faced by those of us who are positive about Europe.
Anti-Europeans always try to compare the new concept of Europe with developments in the United States and the former Soviet Union. We cannot, however, find the answers in those places. We have a different situation in Europe, where we have very ancient and deep-rooted nations, with all the good things and all the horrible things

in their history. As nothing like this has ever been attempted before, it really is not surprising that there is not a blueprint or template telling us how to put together the pieces so that it all comes right in the end. There are problems in Europe that we should certainly challenge. However, although people who share my viewpoint should not say, "Everything is right about Europe", it is a sad fact that the impression given by those on the other side—that everything about Europe is wrong—is so prevalent and so damaging to our party.
Debates such as this often end up taking place only on our side of the House, because Labour fields a few traditional anti-Europeans and everyone else keeps quiet. Would that we were debating the matter over on the other side of the Chamber.
I make a plea to my party to ensure that, henceforth, this Pavlovian anti-European reaction is dropped. We must approach issues such as the rapid reaction force, the deliberations at Nice, qualified majority voting, or the composition of the Council of Ministers or the Commission calmly and constructively. We must not assume that all our European colleagues are out to score off us and to do us down. It would be of great benefit to our party if we could get our minds round that, and get the message across to the country.
Although appearing to be little Englanders bashing Johnny foreigner—because they all begin at Calais—might appeal to a small number of people, such an approach does not win elections. My hon. Friends will remember that the elections that the Conservative party won were won on the basis of our being a positive European party, by contrast with the oscillating, vacillating history of the Labour party. I submit, therefore, that a constructive approach would be good not only for our party, but, more importantly, for the country, because Britain must play its part in Europe for the sake of Europe and of Britain.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The Foreign Secretary made his position and that of the Government clear in an article in The Daily Telegraph last Friday and at the Dispatch Box today. Similarly, my own position is transparently clear—and as the House will recognise, I have been somewhat more consistent in my views than certain Labour Members, not least the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
I am a long-standing opponent not of Europe or things European, nor of European people, but of political union. I voted no in the 1975 referendum. I fought every inch of the way against the treaty on European union, and voted against the Amsterdam treaty just as surely as I shall vote against the Nice treaty. It will be apparent that I speak in this debate not as a spokesman for the official Opposition. I do, however, speak for the millions of British people who believe that the United Kingdom would be better off out of the European Union, and who are effectively disfranchised because not one party represented in Parliament today—my own included—has the courage to represent that point of view.
I quote the ancient Greek statesman, Pericles:
Remember that prosperity can only be for the free and that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.


I shall also remind my Conservative colleagues of the words of our party chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said, when addressing the Conservative party spring forum in Harrogate on 1 April, that
our greatest weapon must be truth: plain, simple and blunt.
As someone who has never been afraid of the truth, I welcome that statement and consider it high time the debate in Britain about Europe was conducted on that basis. Sadly, it has not been so conducted to date. The record is that, over the past 25 years or more, senior politicians have been, shall we say, economical with the truth. To this day, there is a reluctance on the part of British politicians to accept what has long been recognised by continental politicians—that the European Union, as it is now called, is all about European integration.
The House need not take my word for it. Perhaps hon. Members will heed the words of Joschka Fischer, delivered in Berlin on 12 May. He described his speech that day as
a contribution to a debate long begun in the public arena about the "finality" of European integration.
He left no doubt that that was the end game. He described the process of European integration as probably the "biggest political challenge" facing the states and peoples of Europe. He said that we must put into place the last brick in the building of European integration—namely, political integration. Having posed the question, "Quo vadis, Europa?", Mr. Fischer answered it as follows:
Onwards to the completion of European integration.
Only last week, he used the same analogy, likening Nice to the keystone in the edifice of European integration.
The German Foreign Minister is not alone, however. To a conference 12 months ago on "Progressive Governance in the 21st Century", European Commission President Romano Prodi stated unequivocally that
European unity was, first and foremost, a political concept.
There is no lack of evidence or witnesses to show that the European Union was never—and was never intended to be—what successive British politicians have tried to con the British public into believing.
As far as the rest of Europe is concerned, the EU is not about economics. Only the British choose to believe that. It is about politics and political integration. The sooner we acknowledge that plain and simple fact, the better. However, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in Berlin in June my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) looked forward to
an open Europe of free, democratic and independent Kingdoms and republics stretching from Brest to Brest-Litovsk.
It was as though he had never heard of Romano Prodi, or had never seen COM2000154Final, the paper that sets out the "strategic objectives" of the European Union for 2000–05.
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham aspires to does not even begin to connect with anything that Prodi and the European Commission are talking about. He asserted:
Nations once bound up … in the shackles of Soviet control see European Union membership as the end point of their journey to freedom and free enterprise.

He did not stop to consider that, in real terms, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Estonia today enjoy greater political freedom than we who have placed ourselves in the straitjacket of Brussels.
As far as those countries of central and eastern Europe are concerned, the proposition that exchanging Soviet-style communism for European Union-style collectivism represents a qualitative improvement beggars belief. It inevitably calls into question the judgment of those who can make such flights of fancy with such apparent ease.
Hon. Members would do well to recognise that the European Union collective exists to supplant the nation state. It follows, therefore, that continued membership of the European Union is incompatible with our on-going existence as an independent nation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said this afternoon that the British people do not want a European super-state. However, does he not recognise that that is the only sort of Europe that is on offer?
In Berlin, my right hon. Friend talked about a fork in the road, but he used the wrong metaphor. We are not on a road and there are no turnings. We are on a conveyor belt, or perhaps even a railway. It makes no difference—the destination is the same whichever analogy is used, and that destination is political integration.
My right hon. Friend spoke of agriculture and fisheries policies that belong to a bygone era, but stopped short of saying that he would scrap both collectivist policies and return the powers to the nation states, where they rightfully belong—although to be fair to him, he has latterly accepted that the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are collectivist. On the contrary, he has studiously avoided using the word "repatriation", for fear, I suggest, of upsetting the treaties. The logic of his position is presumably that by the time reform of the policies is achieved, it will be of no more than academic interest to the thousands of British farmers who will, in the meantime, have been forced to leave the land their families have farmed for generations; or to the hundreds of British fishermen who will have been driven off the waters that their forebears have fished since time immemorial.
With all due respect, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that we are elected to this place not by the treaties but by the voters in our constituencies. His priority may be adherence to the treaties, but mine most certainly is not.
My right hon. Friend spoke of our long history of dogged support for British membership of the European Union. If I am to be remembered for my dogged support of anything, I would rather it was for my dogged support of the best interests of my country and the best interests of my constituents in the Ludlow division. Those are the people who sent me to this Parliament and those are the people to whom I am answerable—not the European Commission, not the Council of Ministers, not even the Conservative party, but the 60,000 voters in the Ludlow constituency.
To his credit, my right hon. Friend acknowledged:
the tide of federalism on the continent of Europe is still inexorably rising …
He said:
I think it is time in Britain we accepted that among much of the political class on the continent the federalist drive towards full political union is alive and well …



In that, there is not one iota of difference between us. Where we part company, however, is on the method by which we will return this country to the situation that people thought they were voting for when they voted yes in the 1975 referendum. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is on record as saying:
Come with me and I will give you back your country …
That is where I and millions like me would like to be, but that highly desirable goal cannot be reached through the normal process of negotiation. Only by making it clear to our European Union partners that we are determined to reassert the supremacy of Parliament, that sovereignty belongs to the people of this country and is not negotiable, and that British law will no longer be overridden by European law can the commendable aspiration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks be achieved.
That is not the language used in these debates. In relation to the forthcoming treaty of Nice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has committed the Conservative party to revisiting its provisions if it fails to gain popular support. Rather than state that he will reject the treaty outright, he contents himself with saying that he will oppose it if it appears to be integrationist. In all sincerity, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can name any European treaty that has not been integrationist. Does he not recognise that achieving the position hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition requires unanimity, just as any meaningful reform of the CAP or the CFP requires unanimity, and that unanimity simply is not in prospect?
If unanimity for radical reform is not likely to be forthcoming, how are all the aspirations held out by my party to be achieved? Is not the reality that we have signed up to the equivalent of a full repairing lease for an infinite term on conditions that we no longer find acceptable and at a rent that some would say we can no longer afford?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said that our greatest weapon must be truth. Is not the truth plain, simple and blunt, as he would have it—that nothing short of an irreducible ultimatum will take us out of the situation in which we find ourselves today and into the position that our rhetoric implies?
How can my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham expect to achieve, by means of the normal channels, the fundamental modernisation and loosening of the CAP that he wants, when France—as has been demonstrated recently—torpedoes agricultural reforms, just as Spain would almost certainly veto any dilution of the principle of
equal access to the common resource
in relation to fisheries? How can other shadow Ministers hold out the promise of cutting back on the regulatory burden, when both the volume and content of EU regulations, directives, decisions and recommendations are beyond the control of the Westminster Parliament?
How will my party convince the nation that it will never accept, for example, the European constitution implicit in the charter of fundamental rights or the adoption of a continental legal system by way of corpus juris, when all the signs are that it is reluctant to make the repatriation of control over two of our most basic industries a precondition of progress in other directions? To put it plainly, simply and bluntly, the question is: how?
How will the rhetoric be turned into reality? How are slogans to be translated into policy? For how much longer can the answer to these questions be delayed before it is overtaken by a general election and the inexorable advance towards "ever closer union"?
My loyalty has been strained to the limit. In all conscience, I cannot go to the hustings as candidate for a party that maintains that one can be in Europe, but not run by Europe. I have therefore announced that I shall not seek re-election.
That is my decision; I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are happy with theirs. It is still not too late for my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks to say that there will be no single currency while he remains leader of the Conservative party and that, under his premiership, control over agriculture and fisheries would be repatriated. That message would resonate with the people of this country; it is the very least that he must do to ensure that socialism is defeated at the next general election.

Mr. William Cash: 1 have a strange feeling as I listen to the debate. I hear the words of some of my colleagues, but they bear little relationship to what is being done under the treaties. That is one of the most extraordinary aspects not only of this debate but of all debates on European matters. Anyone with eyes to see can read the treaties.
It is extraordinary that the impression has been created that the common foreign and security policy—as it has emerged—was not rooted in the Maastricht treaty. I put down about 240 amendments to that treaty—many on foreign and security policy and on defence. It is astonishing that anyone could have imagined that we did not subscribe to the policy, or that it would not have resulted in the consequences evident in newspaper headlines during the past few days.
I was deeply disturbed by the Amsterdam treaty debates, when I put down about 100 amendments. Some grand speeches were made, from both the Conservative Front Bench and elsewhere; there were some Divisions; and the House of Lords—which, at that time, we could rely on—could have made amendments that would have forced the issue. The House of Lords could have combined the issue of its own constitutional position with the massively important questions contained in the Amsterdam treaty, and forced through amendments. We would have won the amendments in the Lords and returned the measure to the House of Commons, where we could have debated increased integration under the treaty under the Parliament Acts and concluded the matter. But nothing of the kind took place.
I am delighted by the shift and movement in the atmosphere and rhetoric, but when I look at the facts, I become concerned about the extent to which we will actually do something when it comes to the crunch, as compared to simply saying that we will do certain things. I have grave doubts about the substance of much of my party's policy on this subject.
I am concerned that the Prime Minister has explicitly refused my request for a White Paper on the constitutional and political implications three times in the past year on the Floor of the House. Using one's time in Prime Minister's Question Time on three separate occasions to
request a constitutional White Paper on Europe may be thought to be overdoing it, but if the Government attempt to describe in a White Paper the difficulties inherent in the constitutional and political implications of this bizarre adventure they will be completely and utterly unseated. I am glad that the Daily Mail is taking up that issue with great vigour. The Government will never be able to answer the questions that would arise from such a document, so they dare not write it.
I shall return to my theme and ask my Front Benchers to take the step of saying that they would insist on a White Paper on the constitutional and political implications. After all, we cannot simply say, "Oh well, we wrote one ourselves on certain aspects of the previous treaties", because the real problems, which were considered in the 1972 White Paper, were disguised to the British people. As a matter of honour to our country, we must go back to what was said in 1971, gear it up to the present day and give an honest appraisal of the situation so that no one will be deceived in future.
We have heard much talk about super-powers and super-states. I made my point in Prime Minister's questions the other day. I asked him whether he could explain how his European super-power would not be a super-state, but of course he could not answer. Many colleagues have made similar points today. However, a much bigger problem will come up in the Nice treaty because the Government are presenting an argument that is coloured not only by confusion, but by deceit. It is about time that the British people were offered an opportunity to make a choice not merely about different destinations, but about the different spheres in Europe.
I have just written a pamphlet entitled "Associated, but not absorbed", quoting Winston Churchill who used those very words. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) quoted Churchill selectively. At Zurich in 1946, Churchill not only spoke about a kind of united states of Europe, but on another occasion used the words "associated, but not absorbed". I think in May 1953, he rejected the notion of a federal system.

Mr. Redwood: Sir Winston Churchill made it very clear at Fulton, Missouri and in his Zurich speech that he wanted a united states of Europe, but Britain would not be a member. He thought Britain should be a member of an English-speaking union, the details of which would become clear later.

Mr. Cash: Such debates are characterised by the misquoting of Churchill, who was, after all, one of this country's greatest Prime Ministers. It is a disgrace that people should attempt to subvert his meaning.
I have referred to two different spheres. We know that we do not want European government. I have often said as a slogan: "European trade and political co-operation yes: European government no". We know that the proposals to create European government came out of the Maastricht treaty, which was endorsed in Amsterdam. The proposals will be extended in the prospective treaty of Nice.
What are we do to do about that? If the Conservative party is against the idea of European government, we cannot go on giving the impression that we do not like it

and talk about not being ruled by Europe. We have to bite the bullet. To do that, we must go for a policy of renegotiation, because it is possible for any member state to table amendments to any treaty at the intergovernmental conference and demand that those amendments are taken.
If the amendments are rejected by the other member states—I accept that many would argue that that would be inevitable—at least we would have gone through the right process. We would then appeal to the other countries—applicant as well as Scandinavian countries—and ask them to join us in a separate treaty. We could agree to remain in the single market, but would repudiate all those aspects of the treaties that came out of the Maastricht and Amsterdam provisions relating to European government.
If we do not do that, despite all the rhetoric we shall end up with a continual progression to more and more integration. We shall look as if we are doing something, but, in practice, we will not be. It is clear to me and I suspect to many colleagues that, if we were to tighten our policy so that we said never to the single currency or said no to it in principle, the British people would know exactly where we stood. I fear that, when we appear in television broadcasts during the election campaign, it is probable that questions relating to our policy of saying no for the duration of only one Parliament will be asked for the famous 14 times until our policy is made to look extremely thin. That would be in the middle of the general election campaign.
We have to tighten our policy and we must have a clear sense of the direction in which we are prepared to allow the Government to go. I endorse the remarks of many colleagues who said that we had an absolute duty to maintain, on behalf of our constituents, the supremacy of the British Parliament without necessarily going as far as to suggest that we should withdraw from the European Union. We must have an alternative process in mind. We must have a clear idea on where we are going and a policy of renegotiation. We also need a referendum.
I do not think that it is possible to have a referendum simply on the Nice treaty. We should have had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty because that raised the principle of European government. Colleagues may remember that I set up the MARC referendum campaign and we obtained 500,000 signatures from the British people. The petition was presented to Parliament for a referendum on Maastricht.
We should have had a referendum on the combination of the Maastricht and the Amsterdam treaties, and, before the next treaty is ratified, we should have one on the combined effect of the three treaties. It should not simply be a referendum on the single currency, but on the broader political and constitutional implications of Europe. I made that clear in my Referendum Bill in 1996. I got into hot water at that time, but the present situation in the Conservative party is very conducive to many of my ideas. However, it has not gone far enough.
I deeply resent the idea that we heard yesterday that somehow this Government created the common foreign security and defence policy. I have some sympathy with the Defence Secretary's comments yesterday.
One sees in the Maastricht treaty that there is qualified majority voting for matters relating to joint action. When one examines the combat role in the Petersberg tasks in


the context of what I said earlier about the Nuremberg declaration, and considers the totality, confused and vague as it may be—and deliberately so—one sees the reality. As the Foreign Secretary said on 22 May 1997, in reply to a question that I asked:
On defence, the French and Germans want the Western European Union to be merged into the European Union. This would undermine NATO.
He did not deny that when I put it to him earlier; he knows that that is what he said. It does undermine NATO.
We can add to that point what has happened since in St. Malo, Cologne, Helsinki and Feira. With Nice to come, the position as set out by the Foreign Secretary on 22 May 1997 has been multiplied many times over. The policy that he was criticising as undermining NATO will not only, by definition, undermine NATO but damage it beyond repair.
In order to be able to work towards a Europe with which we can live, we must modify the acquis communautaire, using political will to do so. In order to achieve enlargement, politicians will need to convince the people in central and eastern Europe far more effectively than they are at the moment. I am talking about the people and not the elite. What happened in Denmark is a good example of what could happen. Indeed, on "Today" this morning, we heard that there were rumblings in the Czech Republic—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I warmly applaud the concept of greater friendship and co-operation among the peoples of Europe. The treaty of Nice could enhance that vision by, in the words of the Foreign Secretary today, reuniting Europe and welcoming back the states of central and eastern Europe that were lost to communism and the cause of freedom. The treaty of Nice could make that possible by promoting a multifaceted and flexible approach. The description of that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was excellent. That part of his speech deserves reading. Such an approach recognises that the sovereign nation state is, and should be, the fundamental building block of a better world. However, I doubt whether the treaty of Nice will produce such a result. It is true that Europe will emerge wider, but it will also emerge deeper.
I wish that we could have a more honest debate in this country. There is no European plot. Politicians on the continent have no difficulty in being honest about what they want to create. They are perfectly good and high-minded ladies and gentlemen who wish to create a Europe with one currency, based on a single market. They want an ever closer union, in tune with the treaties that they have signed. I agree that the process is often inefficient— even, perhaps, chaotic—but they are united in their aims and perfectly entitled so to be.
Leading politicians in this country, however, pretend that they can ride this tiger yet pretend that the tiger does not exist. It does. I believe that the only honest approach for this country is to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, returning agriculture and fisheries to the control of this Parliament and recognising our sovereignty.

Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend explain how there can be national control over

fisheries, which are by their nature international? We have never had national control over fisheries; we have always had to have international control because of the nature of the fish. Why does my hon. Friend suggest national control when no reputable organisation in the fishing industry thinks that it is sensible?

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is a member of a reputable organisation, namely the Conservative party, which does propose that. It does so because if national control of our fishing policy were returned to us, we could engage in bilateral negotiations with other countries, and instead of seeing the gradual destruction of our fishing stocks, we could perhaps see greater conservation of them. I do not accept his point.

Mr. Gummer: How can we have bilateral negotiations over fishing grounds that are shared not by two countries but often by four or five? Why is my hon. Friend proposing that we should replace a perfectly sensible system with another system, when we should be changing the policy so that we protect the fish?
I was referring to reputable organisations that are involved in the fishing industry, such as the one that I chair—the Marine Stewardship Council.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is entitled to make his point. My point is that the current policy, which I understand was signed up to in the dying hours of negotiation of our entry into the European Economic Community in the early 1970s, has been a disaster for our country. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke with great passion on this issue, and my constituency abuts his. I wish that my right hon. Friend could go to Grimsby and see how our fishing industry has been depleted and destroyed by vast Spanish fleets and others. I believe that there is a better way, but I want to move on because my right hon. Friend is trying to lead me down paths and make me sound more controversial than I want to be. I want to reach out to him and others in my party.
We need to reaffirm our sovereignty over the essential matters of the nation state: foreign policy, defence, border controls and currency. If we are honest about those matters, we could lead a core of nations in Europe that believe in the single market, world free trade and co-operation on such issues as environmental protection. That policy is perfectly sensible and moderate, not extremist, and people who advocate it are not little Englanders or nationalists who decry the points of view of foreigners. Those people simply believe that there are some matters on which it is best to assert the rights of sovereign nations. On other issues, such as trade, environmental protection and perhaps even transport links, it is possible to have a wider dimension, whether in the EU or elsewhere. The same argument can apply to defence, NATO and other such areas.
During the debate, my Front-Bench colleagues have come in for a lot of criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. However, the policy that I have described is that of the official Opposition, and it is completely in tune with what the British public want. They do not want to surrender their currency, foreign policy, defence policy or border controls, yet they are not ready to say that we will march out of the European Union. They want co-operation and friendship with other


countries in Europe. That policy is a perfectly sensible, moderate middle way, which can receive the support of the British people.
After making those general remarks, I have more detailed observations to make about a specific aspect of EU policy that closely affects my agricultural and rural constituency: the everything but arms initiative. The initiative is designed to help the least developed countries; it will give them unrestricted access to the EU markets and allow their economies to expand. Those are good things. It will include many of the poorest African, Caribbean and Pacific—ACP—countries, helping them by abolishing the duties and quotas that currently operate when produce is imported into the EU. The plan is to implement the initiative by the end of 2001. Quotas have recently been set up under the Cotonou agreement to allow ACP countries time to adjust and diversify their markets.
The laudable principle of allowing free trade with the least-developed countries is one with which we all agree. There is no problem with that. However, I believe that the proposals are misguided because their effect will be detrimental to the very countries they are designed to help. In addition, there might be severe implications for United Kingdom farming, which is already in a state of crisis. Farm incomes are at their lowest since the 1930s, having dropped by 75 per cent. in recent years. Farms throughout the UK are going bust and farmers are committing suicide at a rate of more than one a week—that is probably a conservative figure. Farming families are struggling with unbearable pressure and action needs to be taken to help them.
The reasons that farming is in such a state of crisis are well known. They include the strong pound, high exchange rates, the reduction of the real value of subsidies from the common agricultural policy, and an exhausting and seemingly endless stream of red tape with which farming families have to deal. The increased power of retailers allows them to dictate prices to smaller farmers. Other factors include cheap imports, the pressures of globalisation, high indirect taxes and the suspicion that the stringent welfare standards that our farmers have to meet are not being as stringently enforced in other EU states, let alone the rest of the world.
Sugar beet was one of the few crops in the UK that offered any hope to farming families; in recent years, it was making a profit. However, the implementation of the EU everything but arms reforms after only a short period of debate will lead to the collapse of the price of sugar beet. That will deliver another hammer blow to UK farming, which is not to be given sufficient time to adapt under current plans.
The EBA agreement will have an equally detrimental effect on agriculture in ACP countries. We should be concerned about those countries, which are among the poorest in the world. Many are members of the Commonwealth. The abolition of quotas and tariffs will result in the flooding of the EU market for the crops in question, as supply outstrips demand. That will inevitably lead to the collapse of prices for those products—although that is unlikely to be passed on to the consumer—and the collapse of many ACP countries economies. Many ACP countries are dependent on cash crops for an unhealthy proportion of their economy—in some cases, as much as

25 per cent. Their economies will be severely undermined and the very people whom the Government and the European Commission are trying to help will be harmed.
A good example of the likely effects of unlimited access to the markets is the rum industry in ACP countries. To remain competitive within the EU, producers need to move from bulk rum production towards an ACP-branded value-added product. An agreement to help the rum industry to develop in that way was reached after the Lomé negotiations, to allow producers time to boost their competitiveness and build their markets abroad. The timetable was set to extend until 2008, but all the hard work will have been for nothing if the everything but arms proposal is allowed to go ahead unchanged. It will take effect in 2003 at the latest—a full five years before the original deadline. Therefore, even those whom the EBA proposal is designed to help do not want it to be implemented. The Government must take note of those problems and not plough on with an ill thought out plan that ignores the plight of farmers in the UK and ACP countries.
We are still waiting for answers from the Government, but there is complete confusion. I have attended all the debates on the subject, both in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber. Earlier this week, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who responded to the debate in Westminster Hall, was so confused that she had to retract what she had said. The Secretary of State for International Development stated that she strongly supported the proposal; then, the Prime Minister stated that he was concerned about it—obviously, he had not been briefed to respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). What is going on?
It is a serious matter, especially for farmers, who are going through the worst agricultural depression since the 1930s. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who understands the economies of Caribbean countries, was present during the Westminster Hall debate. She asked, "What is the logic in bringing forward a proposal that is designed to try to help the least-developed countries in the world, when it will lead to the collapse of the economies of many of the poorest countries?"
What is the Government's reaction? We are still waiting for it. The Foreign Secretary did not comment on these matters this afternoon. I plead with the Minister to receive briefing and to inform the House exactly of the Government's attitude. It would be a disaster, given all the other pressures that are hitting farmers from all quarters, if we were to see a collapse of the sugar beet economy. I am pleased to see that the Minister is nodding. He knows that we have one of the worst sugar beet quota regimes in the EU.
When the Minister responds, many of us who represent farming areas, whatever our views about the EU —whether we are enthusiastic, sceptical or realistic—will look to him to represent our interests in the EU, to defend the interests of sugar beet growers and to defend the interests of those countries that have loyally supported us in the past, some of the poorest countries in the world which are in the Caribbean. They rely on the Treasury Front Bench to stand firm on these matters.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had assumed the Chair in time to hear the brave speeches the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). They demonstrated that the best traditions of British parliamentary democracy endure. They were fighting against established orthodoxies. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the dangers of a super-power for the security of Europe and for the maintenance of democracy. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby observed how the use of Euro terminology has debased the political debate so that politics as such is no longer trusted by the British people. The hon. Member for Luton, North talked about the failure of the euro and the implications for British politics of that debacle.
I shall talk about the European defence initiative. First, I challenge the Foreign Secretary. He said that the Euro force would be deployed only if NATO were not engaged. Is that not in itself a recipe for the alienation of the United States? Presumably, if an operation does not have the approbation of the United States, it would go ahead on a European basis. We did so over Suez, and it was disastrous.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be no question of deployment of British troops without "the approval of this Chamber". Does that mean that the royal prerogative, in terms of the deployment of British troops on a Euro operation, is suspended? If approval is required, will we have votes in the House—not just a ministerial statement—before British troops can be deployed, or is it merely another example of Euro terminology, which is confusing and not to be trusted?
The exercise and deployment of troops on peace-keeping operations is not to be lightly undertaken. As my gallant hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) knows above all, in Northern Ireland we have lost more than 2.000 members of the security forces. The poor Spanish people are undergoing the horrors of a terrorist campaign at the hands of ETA. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, many allied troops lost their lives. In Kosovo, we sustained an air campaign of great intensity. Royal Air Force air crews did not suffer casualties, but they gained more awards for gallantry than in any military operation since the second world war.
In other words, the 60,000 men, the six squadrons of aircraft and the 72 naval vessels that are to be deployed for up to a year and up to a range of 2,000 miles—or 2,000 km; I cannot remember which—from Brussels will be engaged in operations that will often be dangerous, difficult, hazardous and life threatening. People are prepared to make sacrifices to defend their country, their way of life and the values that they hold dear, but I doubt whether they will be prepared to risk their lives for the common fisheries policy, which has decimated communities around our coast, or the common agricultural policy, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made absolutely plain, has been disastrous for British agriculture and the housewife.
People will not lay down their lives for the supremacy of European law over our own or for continuing the British net contribution to the European Union, but they will note how different an organisation is the EU compared with other collaborative and free-trading bodies

such as the Association of South East Asian Nations and Mercosur and arrangements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. None of those has a centralised bureaucracy; none aspires to super-power status; none wants to throw its military weight around.
The great difference between NATO and the new European rapid reaction force organisation is that NATO was always a voluntary association of sovereign independent states. That was its strength, and the strength of Western European Union as well. WEU and NATO had at their foundation—at their heart—a mutual security guarantee. The EU has forsworn that, and the Brussels treaty commitment will not be a prerequisite to participation in the Euro intervention force. As a consequence, the force will not be effective. Indeed, the neutrals will be involved.
Yesterday, I put it to the Secretary of State for Defence that it was important that the neutrals sign the Brussels treaty. They will not do so. As a consequence, the organisation will be weak and divisive. We all know how alienated the non-EU members of NATO feel. They may not be fully involved in the decision-making process—indeed, that is perfectly plain. Otherwise, why would their leading politicians and leading diplomats express their reservations in public?
My anxiety is simple: the aspiration to create a super-power by means of the European security and defence initiative will polarise and divide our continent. Over time, it will make it much harder to achieve accommodation with the Russians, who have always been anxious that the EU may acquire a military dimension—especially if that dimension involves nuclear power. 1 presume that the French nuclear deterrent will, over time, become an instrument available to the EU. We should consider such a development with the greatest caution.
Some say that Conservative Members have no vision, are xenophobic and mistrust fundamentally those who have for so long been our allies and partners on the continent. That is utterly false—it is typical election sloganising. We have a vision of a genuine community—the European Community as it set out—of free-trading, democratic and sovereign states and nations working together on the basis of mutual respect and for their common good. The vision is wholly worthy and wholly compatible with today's economic realities, which were so well described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Why is it that, alone among the world's free trade organisations, the EU has such an added bureaucratic dimension? Because it has ambitions for aggrandisement and for an accretion of power. Were it a democratic institution, one would be less anxious, but we should consider its manifestations—not least its abuses, its fraud and its corruption as well as the life style of the Eurocrats, which is so removed from and utterly alien to that of our working people, who lead hard but decent ordinary lives far away from the photo opportunities, the Euro lunches and the Mercedes that glide to and from meetings in agreeable locations. That is why the forces of our country will have misgivings about laying down their lives for the Euro force and the European Union. I ask the Government to think again.
A further point must be made. If there is a crisis, there will be two military staffs, will there not—those under Javier Solana of the European Union, the high chief


representative or whatever he is called, and those under Lord Robertson of NATO? They may have quite different interpretations of an emerging crisis, how it should be dealt with, which forces should be deployed and how. It is a recipe for indecision and delay. I urge the Government to think long and hard before they go too far down the road.
If there is no parliamentary dimension and proper oversight, it will perpetuate the democratic deficit that is endemic in all European institutions. I urge the Government to continue with the Assembly of the Western European Union, which has the great merit of bringing in parliamentarians from all over Europe, not just European Union parliamentarians. Those representatives sit in their own parliaments, take part in their own national debates, vote the funds, scrutinise the policies and question their defence Ministers.
Those are the people who should be involved, not the MEPs who just go to Brussels and Strasbourg with huge majorities on the list, who are removed from their electorate and have no role in the decision making on defence policy in their national Parliaments.
The Government are, in the words of Lady Thatcher, capable of committing a "monumental folly". Whether they will or not is up to them. I believe in European co-operation. I have worked for it in the defence field all my working life. But it does not mean that the way in which it is being undertaken by the present Administration is wise or that it will have a happy outcome.

Mr. John Maples: I agree with much that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said about European defence, but first I shall deal with some of the other issues that will face us at Nice.
I am perfectly happy with the various proposals for dealing with the blocking minority and the size of the Commission. We must deal with those if enlargement is to take place. One of the scandals of the European Union over the past 11 years is that we have been so slow in admitting the countries of central and eastern Europe. All of us want the process speeded up. There are far more substantive and fundamental issues than numbers of Commissioners and blocking minorities to settle, but I hope that those will get settled too.
On qualified majority voting, the list in the draft treaty produced by the French presidency contains 50 proposals for substituting qualified majority voting for the veto. With some of those, I have no problem—for example, the rules for the Court of Auditors or including intellectual property in trade negotiations. Those are clearly matters on which there ought to be qualified majority voting.
However, our interest in QMV is not some narrow obsession about national sovereignty. There are two fundamental reasons for it, and I hope that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), will address them in his reply.
One reason is that if the Government want to introduce legislation in the House, they can do so. They can get it passed. If they lose the next election, we can repeal the

legislation, just as they can repeal legislation that we passed in the 18 years that we were in power. However, once European directives or regulations have been passed, we cannot do that. There is no longer a democratically accountable way of changing those regulations.
In cases in which it is important to us what that consequence may be, it is vital that there remains a national veto. Some of the legislation that has been passed under the social chapter, for instance, falls absolutely into that category. I can see the argument for it. I can see that the Government may well want to pass such legislation, but they should not do so through European Union directives which, if they lose an election, cannot be repealed.
The second point about QMV is that there is a fundamental view shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that some matters, such as trade negotiations and the single market, are quite properly the business of the European Union, and qualified majority voting should apply to those if we are ever to get anywhere. There are other matters in which the European Union should never be involved and which should not even be within the competence of the treaty.
There is a third category, in which there is clearly some European Community interest and ought to be some competence, but where the issue is so serious to us as a nation state that the veto must remain.
Many of the 50 items that are proposed for qualified majority voting fall slap bang into the six areas on which the Government do not want it. The first is the appointment of the representative for common foreign and security policy, which comes under defence. Another is the Commission's ability to take action to combat discrimination based on, for example, sex or race. The European Union should have nothing to do with that. We all have different problems with that subject, and we should all be free to approach them in our different ways.
It is proposed that we should move from unanimity to qualified majority voting on social security, and insert in article 42 of the treaty the following words:
for the coordination of national laws in the field of social security.
It is extremely dangerous, and the thin end of the wedge, to apply to Britain some of the lavish and generous social security arrangements through which many of our European partners are about to go bankrupt. It is undesirable to allow for a system whereby qualified majority voting could force such expensive systems on us, and attach the same ball and chain to our feet.
Another example is the free movement of persons, and immigration and border controls. It is proposed to subject a raft of measures in articles 62 and 63—for example, visas, border controls and treatment of asylum seekers—to qualified majority voting.
Perhaps the most important example is tax. Article 93 allows the Community to make rules by unanimity for the approximation of indirect taxes. It is now proposed not only to subject that to qualified majority voting—a dangerous move—but to introduce for the first time competence in direct taxation. I appreciate that that will remain subject to unanimity for the time being. However, we know how such matters proceed. First, they become a vague proposal about which nothing will happen, then they are subject to veto. The next time a treaty is drawn up, they are subject to qualified majority voting. I hope


that the Government will not allow the inclusion of competence in direct taxation in the treaty of Nice because pressure will be applied eventually to subject it to qualified majority voting.
All those issues are important. The Government will be in difficulties because they oppose many of the proposals. They will find themselves in the same position as the Administrations of Lady Thatcher and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Most of our partners in the European Union have an agenda to integrate much further than we want to integrate. Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon found that, and I believe that the Government are also finding it. One gets dragged down a road, and one has to make concessions in order to exclude the little bits that the Government do not like.
Earlier, I mentioned six article amendments. It falls slap bang into the area over which the Foreign Secretary wants to retain a veto, as he told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Parliament. To do that, the Government will have to make concessions. They are making the biggest concessions in defence policy. I believe that we are witnessing a series of pre-emptive concessions on defence. That is a negotiating mistake in the European Union, which banks pre-emptive concessions. We then have to start with a blank sheet of paper because there is no credit for good actions in the past. Thus concessions will not give the Government much mileage at Nice. Such concessions are dangerous.
In the discussion on yesterday's statement on defence, I said what I thought of European defence identity. However, I want to make a couple of further points. There has been much misquoting of foreign opinion. I listened to the American ambassador on the radio this morning. The Americans use language that is extremely carefully constructed. Labour Members keep quoting their words on supporting goals. However, the goals that they identify are the enhancement of European military capability and its co-ordination. They do not support, and they are extremely worried about the establishment of a military structure, with staff, command control and intelligence communications arrangements outside NATO. I keep asking Ministers why we cannot do that within NATO, but I never receive a satisfactory answer.
The 1996 Berlin summit agreed a European security and defence identity. The phrase comes from NATO, not the European Union. The arrangements can achieve nothing that could not be achieved within NATO. I wholly agree that we need to enhance European military capability and better co-ordination. Our planes should be able to land on French carriers and vice versa. However, making those arrangements outside NATO presents some potentially serious dangers.
We must recognise what the French agenda is. The French are perfectly entitled to their own agenda, but on this, their foreign policy is very different from ours and the Americans. On the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall last year, President Chirac made a major speech. He resented US global dominance and called for the European Union to work for a multipolar world that contained US military power. He said that the European Union could flourish by seeking to supplant the United States. The French Foreign Minister, Mr. Vedrine, said that he held up the EU as an example of international co-operation to compete with the United States on international issues.
That is the French agenda. It is all very well for the Government to say that the Americans are perfectly happy, that the force cannot operate without NATO being offered a veto and that it will undertake only peacekeeping. They talk about peacekeeping, but then use Kosovo, which involved high-intensity warfare, as an example of the sort of thing that we should be able to do. Which is it to be? The Germans want to the force to be able to travel 4,000 km, which would take it to Baghdad, Cairo or Libya. Do we really want to go there or is this about peacekeeping in the Balkans after peace has been established?
Those issues have been muddied. The Government have made concessions so that the Prime Minister appears to be a good European, whereas in fact he does not want to go along with the EU on a series of issues. He has chosen to make concessions in this particular area, which is a dangerous route to take.
I shall briefly address enhanced co-operation, which is another aspect of the proposals. Enhanced co-operation procedures are set out in the Amsterdam treaty, although they have never been used. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to use them, so once again we are trying to run before we can walk, which is typical of the EU. There are two provisions in the treaty which the Government, including the Minister, thought important when it was made. First, it should be possible to have a national veto on enhanced co-operation between a group of states. Article 40 of the treaty—or its equivalent in the revised treaty—says that if any nation feels that its vital interests are at stake, it can stop enhanced co-operation between other states going ahead.
Secondly, any state that was not part of the original group would be free to join afterwards.
Those provisions have been changed. There is no longer a proposal for a national veto, which is being removed, even—as I understand it—in the area of common foreign and security policy. There is no automatic right to join NATO, although there is a right to ask the Commission to look into the matter. The objectives for enhanced co-operation now include something completely new, as the treaty is aimed at furthering the objectives of the Union… and at reinforcing its process of integration.
There has been a radical departure. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister say how the Government view that? I may be the only person in the House who believes this, but we should be prepared to concede enhanced co-operation at some point and remove our veto on it. That is the only way that we will get the flexible Europe that I want to see.
We should trade that only for something extremely big in the other direction. If the EU wants enhanced co-operation without a veto so that some groups of states can go ahead faster than others, that is fine. Europe should be flexible but, in return, countries such as ours should be allowed the flexibility to say that we do not want the same trade union regulations, rules on racial discrimination and arrangements on pensions as other states because we want to settle our own. The EU should coalesce around a hard core of free trade, the single market and the free movement of people and goods. We love all that, and want it to be properly developed, although the single market has not yet been completed. However, we do not want to be compelled to go into those other areas. We should have two-way flexibility and be prepared to concede enhanced co-operation in exchange for flexibility in the other direction.
For the sake of being good Europeans, the Government seem to be prepared to go along with almost anything proposed by our partners, some of whom clearly want a much more integrated Europe. To parody Mr. Prodi, one can call it a federal Europe, a super-state or even Mary Ann.

Mr. Vaz: Eunice.

Mr. Maples: The Minister wants to call it Eunice after his bus. We are heading for a united states of Europe. At a certain point, this country will have to draw a line on that. The big danger in the Government getting sucked down the road of bringing in defence and taxation is that those people who are mild Euro-sceptics—which is most of the people in Britain—who want and value the EU but who do not want a united states of Europe, will vote not to be in Europe at all, if the alternative is a united states of Europe. We should recognise that, and go no further down the dangerous road that the Government have taken. We should seek a flexible Europe around which we can all agree.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I resent it when I am accused of being anti-European, because apart from anything else I am self-evidently European. Not only that, I happen to like the French, which is a trait that the British are not meant to have. I like Europeans, and I am pro-Europe. However, I am not pro the direction in which the European Union is going, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has just spoken about.
It is distressing that experience teaches us so little. I went to Brussels in early 1993 when subsidiarity was all the rage. I heard a British President of the Commission say, "Subsidiarity has been so over-played. Everyone knows that it is not even worth talking about." At the same time, the Minister welcomed the result of the first Danish referendum. I am delighted that he was then a Euro-sceptic, even though he is not prepared to say anything about that now.
During the Maastricht debate, I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and others, and I realised that they won all the arguments. There was no question about that, and for that reason I voted against the treaty on Third Reading, although not beforehand I am ashamed to say.
In Westminster Hall this afternoon, we were discussing EU development aid. It is a shambles, and the Government admit it. It is corrupt and not effective. They want more money so that they can do it better. What nonsense.
The Foreign Secretary said how useful it was to get an agreement on filament size for fishing nets. That is valuable, but it is not much use to most of our fishermen because they have gone out of business. They have left fishing because of the common fisheries policy. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is wittering away, but I shall discuss the matter with him later.
The common agricultural policy is the biggest and the best example of what I am talking about. My father-in-law was a farmer until, I am delighted to say, he retired

recently. I asked him, "If when you went into farming 40 years ago someone had told you that you would be paid to leave your fields fallow, would you have said they were nuts?" That is what happened with set aside.
How about quotas? That is even better. My father-in-law almost became bankrupt because of quotas, but he managed to come out of dairy farming and rent his quota. He made more money lying in bed than he had ever made milking because of quotas. I am delighted that the Government now realise that quotas must go, because they are nonsense.
The CAP has been bad for consumers and for the environment and disastrous for farming. How can Brussels fix a common agricultural policy for the reindeer herders of northern Sweden, the olive growers of Portugal and the tobacco growers of Greece? It is laughable. It does not work, so let us admit that and consider how to proceed.
I am constrained by time, but I want to deal briefly with the European army. I am pro-European and have worked with European armies. I have worked with the Germans and the French, and enjoyed it very much. We are different, but we get on well and we have co-operated well. What is the motivation behind the European army? It is quite clear. The French have been trying to decouple America from Europe ever since de Gaulle left the military structure, I think in 1968. The French are quite open about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon gave an excellent quote on this issue. The French want to have more influence over Europe. In a letter in The Daily Telegraph today, Caspar Weinberger states what many in America feel, but I do not want to labour that point given the time.
What is the experience of EU countries working together on defence? The French disagreed radically with our Iraqi policy, which the Minister should be pretty clear on. They were accused of being deceptive and totally outrageous because of their policy on Iraq. They do not have the same interests, and do not react in the same way. It is not anti-French or anti-European to say that: it is quite straightforward. Rwanda is suffering terribly, and it is partly because of the attitude of the French that we cannot agree on an aid and sanctions policy for that country. But what is worst of all about the European army proposals is that the result would be ineffective. We would not have the heavy lift, the command and control or the communications and intelligence support that we get from NATO.
As we know, the defence veto is on the table at Nice. I understand that the French would like it to go. The Government say that they will veto it, and I am delighted, but it will be back on the table at the next summit. It is no good the Minister yawning, because this is rather important. The veto will come back, and our experience of the inexorable drift tells us that it will continue to come back until, finally, the aspirations and the agenda of our continental partners catch up with us.
We know what many people in Europe intend, because they have told us. We should believe what they say. Why do we dismiss it with such gay abandon? When Joschka Fischer talks about wanting to elect a president, that is what he wants: he means it. They are honest about the issue on the continent. They say, "Of course we want political integration. That is what the euro is all about, and that is what a European army—a European standing force—is all about." We should believe them.
I shall not compare Joschka Fischer or anyone else to Hitler, but let us consider what happened in the 1930s. Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf', which described his grandiose plans. Everyone said, "Ha, what nonsense." The Germans said, "We have hired Hitler", because they believed that they could control him. But he meant what he said, and look how we suffered.
I am not suggesting that things will go the same way now. I do say, however, that when people tell us something we should believe what they say—unless, perhaps, the people concerned are some of the Ministers in the present Government.

Mr. Richard Spring: We have heard some excellent and spirited speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, expressing genuinely held and diverse views. I congratulate all who have spoken.
The debate has featured contrasting visions of Europe, reflected in the contrasting agendas for Nice and beyond. We have heard about the programme for reform and greater flexibility, endorsed by the Opposition. We have also heard about the drive towards integration supported by the Government and the Liberal Democrats, involving the charter of fundamental rights, the EU defence policy and the further loss of the national veto.
The Labour vision of Europe as a super-power, which drives relentlessly towards integration, is not the only vision on offer. It is a recipe for neither harmony nor unity in Europe. Rather, it will produce conflicts and dissatisfaction as national interests are overridden. As The Economist has said:
A Europe in which all must converge and co-operate on all sorts of subjects, heading dreamily for "ever closer union", is not likely to be either happy or sustainable. Those virtues are likelier to arise if different groups of members can co-operate on different topics, forming a multi-system Europe.
Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the last thing that Labour's move towards economic and political integration will do is assist the process of enlargement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) spoke about that passionately, and I agree with him. The requirements of a diverse, enlarged Europe should cause us to focus on the need for greater flexibility. Labour, however, seems to be stuck in the bloc integrationist thinking of the 1950s.
Other EU leaders have painted a clear picture of the direction in which they want the EU to go, but our Prime Minister's epoch-shattering explanation of why so many EU citizens feel alienated from EU institutions was expressed in his proposal for a second chamber. Perhaps he was emboldened by the mind-boggling success of his reforms of the House of Lords.
The year 2004 will mark the passing of a full decade and a half since the fall of the Berlin wall, but a recent Commission communication led us to believe that that estimate might be overly optimistic, and that late 2004 or even 2005 might be a more realistic date for accession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is absolutely right: the accession process is far too dirigiste.
The Government would have us believe that delays in enlargement have been caused by an unwillingness to extend qualified majority voting. That is the logic of their

position—our opposition to a further loss of the veto would block enlargement. The delay has been caused by nothing of the sort. It has been caused by the total failure of leadership in Europe by the Government, particularly over the need for financial reform.
Let us turn to agriculture, not a subject dear to the heart of the Government, who so truly despise rural Britain. Recently, we had a major statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not think that I heard the word "farming" anywhere in the statement. Perhaps it was because he was embarrassed that farmers' earnings have fallen by 90 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to the sugar beet industry. We wait for the Minister's comments on that. He will be aware of the threat to the industry because of the two proposals emanating from the European Commission, which appear to imply both quota and price cuts, on top of a 30 per cent. cut in beet and sugar prices in the past four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked about farming. He is right: there is a clear and absolute need for substantial reform of the common agricultural policy. We have called repeatedly for reforms that allow more decisions to be made at a national level, yet the issue that is most responsible for delaying enlargement is not even on the IGC agenda.
On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he hoped further reform would be discussed in 2004, for the financial perspective starting in 2006. He maintained his stance that the Berlin agreement was sufficient for enlargement. Patently, it is not. The Berlin reforms involved a watering down of proposals that were already inadequate. Since then, true reform has not even been discussed, yet the plain truth is that, if the CAP were extended in its current form to eastern Europe, it would bankrupt the EU. The EU's unwillingness to apply uniform subsidy rules is behind much of the dissatisfaction, legitimately, in applicant states. Therefore, the Government have failed to grapple with the problem not only of farming in this country, but of agriculture throughout an enlarged European Union. It is a disgraceful abdication of leadership which imperils the very process of enlargement.
Another obstacle in the way of enlargement is the absence of real flexibility, and the attempt to shoehorn the applicant states into rigid conformity with a plethora of needless red tape and regulation. Commission President Prodi recently admitted that it was in areas such as social policy that the biggest delays in adopting the acquis had occurred. Both accession states and existing states should have more freedom to decide whether such measures meet their national interests. Therefore, whereas the Labour party says that our insistence on CAP reform and flexibility would hold up enlargement, the opposite is true. It is the lack of common agriculture reform and the lack of flexibility that will hold up successful enlargement.
The tragic result of Labour's failure of leadership and its willingness to accept an integrationist agenda is that that agenda is encouraged even more. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) pointed out, talking about a super-power, as the Prime Minister did, encourages that. Is it any wonder that a Prime Minister who continues to move towards his super-power,


or super-state, while saying one thing in Britain and doing another in Europe, gives that impression? Is not that direction highly damaging to Britain and to Europe as a whole?
At Nice, the charter of fundamental rights will be proclaimed. As the Commission and many others have indicated, it will impact our domestic law, as was spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). The whole system of British justice based on common law and practice will give way to more and more judge-led laws. Parliament will become increasingly marginalised, yet senior politicians within the EU do not disguise their desire for that to be the basis for a written constitution for the EU and legally enforceable. Just as the British people have viewed with hilarity the Minister's bus trips across the country, so his European counterparts heard with utter disbelief that he regarded that hugely significant document as on a par with the Beano magazine. Where is the reality?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, the issue of the number of Commissioners and the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers is a pragmatic one. Of course resolving it is necessary for enlargement, but that certainly does not require a treaty of Nice.
After he came into office, the Prime Minister made it clear that he opposed absorption of the Western European Union into the European Union. So, what has prompted the change of heart? Was it loyal NATO member countries, such as Norway and Turkey, pleading for a European Union defence effort? Was it the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary beating a path to No. 10 Downing street demanding an EU rapid reaction force? Was it senior members of our armed forces, past and present, demanding it? Was it a whole series of former Defence and Foreign Secretaries, of both parties, saying that it would strengthen our defence efforts? Of course it was not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said it all and so well. The Government's defence commitment in the European Union has aroused massive disquiet in the United Kingdom. Let Labour Members understand why that is—although I appreciate that it is difficult for almost any Minister to understand it.
No institution is more valued in our country than our armed forces. Remembrance Sunday is truly a moment in our national calendar when the entire nation comes together. What has affronted the British people is the way in which politics—and certainly not a desire to improve our defence capability—have so blatantly been at the heart of the decision. Because the Government have failed so miserably to persuade the British people on the single currency, the Prime Minister is using the decision to demonstrate his European credentials.
Did I really hear someone say that the French and the Germans would have gone ahead with the creation of the EU army regardless? Does the Minister believe that the EU army could possibly have been created without a British presence? I have the privilege to have more than 20,000 American service personnel living in my constituency who have, for decades, with selfless generosity, protected us and western Europe. Particularly at a time when the new United States President will be

reviewing his global strategy, the Government's commitment to the EU army is wrong in principle, wrong in timing and imperils the very structure that has helped to preserve our freedom and democracy.
Before the previous general election, the Prime Minister wrote an article entitled "My Love for £", in which he said:
I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a £10 note.
I feel it too. There's a very strong emotional tie to the Pound which I fully understand. Of course there are emotional issues involved in the single currency.
It's not just a question of economics. It's about the sovereignty of Britain and constitutional issues, too.
Yet, in this very Chamber, we heard the Prime Minister say that the constitutional obstacles to our joining the single currency had been resolved—the implications of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). What is going on here? Just the other day, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland claimed that the political and constitutional issues surrounding the single currency should be aired. Clearly, he would like to swap Hillsborough for Chevening.
The Foreign Secretary has rattled on about the hostile press and patriotism while quarrelling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, every hon. Member knows, and every European Union Foreign Minister views with incredulity, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer effectively has control of the policy. His five tests for entry are totally subjective and make him master of ceremonies at the single currency venture to which all the other countries are signed up.
The Minister for Europe has been touring Britain seeking to persuade the British people of the virtues of the single currency. We encourage him to do so. Every time that either he or the Foreign Secretary appears on television defending the Government's policy on Europe, another 10,000 people reject it. Ever since the Minister of State started his epic tour of Britain, support for the single currency has plunged. I invite him to keep up the good work.
Ours is a forward-looking vision for the future of Europe; ours is a positive approach; ours is the path to harmony and unity in Europe. The Government are pursuing a policy on Europe in this country that goes against the grain of the British people, who actually cherish being subjects of the United Kingdom and want to stay that way. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe reflect no vision and no clarity about what the EU should look like or our role in it. Given their credibility and political stature, Britain's failure of leadership in Europe is in the interests of neither Britain nor the EU itself.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): This has been the traditional pre-Council debate and we have had a number of traditional speeches from Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Stone (Mr. Cash). Sadly, we did not hear from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although we have had the opportunity of hearing his views on this subject every single time we debate European Council meetings.
Normally at these traditional debates, we do not hear very much new. Sadly, today we heard the news that the hon. Member for Ludlow has decided to step down and will not be contesting the next election. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear that. Whatever our views on Europe may be, I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, who kept his views consistent over many years—unlike other Conservative Members. He has decided to withdraw from Parliament because he disagrees strongly with the Conservative party's line on Europe. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) may disagree, but that is what the hon. Member for Ludlow said; that is why he has decided to step down.
We heard from the hon. Member for Stone that he has published a pamphlet called "Associated, but not absorbed"; that could be a name for his autobiography, as it represents his attitude to the policy espoused by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
We heard excellent speeches from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—who is not in his place—and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). I did not agree with everything that he said, but the views put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—not mentioned by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) just now—were pertinent.
Opposition Members need a reminder that, as a result of the decision by the General Affairs Council on Monday and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence this week, we are not creating a European army. Conservative Members know this, yet they persist in pushing such myths around the Chamber and out in the country—and they are myths.
NATO remains the bedrock of our defence policy and the EU arrangement on troops—the headline goal—will be used only where NATO does not act. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe did not know which Minister attended the meeting when the Petersberg tasks were agreed. We should reveal that the Minister who attended the meeting and signed up the then Government to the Petersberg tasks was Sir Malcolm Rifkind; the very person who has written in today's newspapers to say that he opposes these matters. Let us have no more hypocrisy about a European army. We have an arrangement that has been the subject of discussions over many years. I was glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that that was the case under the previous Government, as it is under this one.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised the issue of the charter of rights; another myth peddled by the right hon. Member for Horsham. The right hon. Gentleman was up early to catch "Today", saying that the charter of rights was going to be justiciable, binding in law and put in the treaties—all kinds of horrible things were going to happen as a result. He will be pleased to know that in 10 days' time, the charter of rights will be proclaimed at Nice as a declaration, not as a binding document. That is because of the work done by the excellent all-party delegation sent by this House. It consisted of Lords Goldsmith and Bowness—the latter is a member of the Conservative party—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), and my hon. Friend the Member for

Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). They fought extremely hard to ensure that we had a good text to which we could sign up. I reassure the House that that will be a political declaration.

Mr. Maude: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Vaz: No. The right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber for most of the debate.
I will answer the points made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, who asked whether the charter of rights would be a burden on business. I can reassure him that there is no question of that. The CBI's director general, Mr. Digby Jones, said that the CBI was happy and satisfied with the proposed text. There is therefore no reason for the hon. Gentleman to worry about it.

Mr. Maude: The Minister says that the declaration will not be justiciable because it is not in the treaty. The formal submission from the Commission explicitly states that it will be mandatory in effect because of the way in which the European Court of Justice interprets it. Is he saying that the Commission is wrong about that?

Mr. Vaz: I am so sorry to have to explain such matters to the shadow Foreign Secretary—who is the man who signed the Maastricht treaty, a special copy of which I have brought with me today. He will know that there is a big difference between what the Commission would like to happen and what member states will decide to do. Of course the Commission is entitled to its view, but the declaration will be made by the member states.
The right hon. Member for Horsham tells us that he knows a great deal about the EU, but I was present at the conclave in Brussels on Sunday night. Half the countries present at that meeting supported the United Kingdom's view that the declaration should be a political declaration.
I have known the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for many years, as he used to be the Greater London council councillor for Richmond. I am sorry that I did not vote for him, but he can reassure his constituents with what the Prime Minister said only yesterday. That was that we support the proposals, but we have concerns about them too. More work needs to be done before we are happy with the text.
A delegation recently came to see me on the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. If he would like to bring a delegation of his farmers to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am sure that I can arrange a meeting. The hon. Gentleman would then have an opportunity to put his views forward, if he thought fit to do so.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Vaz: As he did not speak in the debate, I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who brings to four and a half the number of horsemen of the anti-European apocalypse.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) a moment ago was truly risible. Is he not aware that article 6.2 of the Maastricht treaty suggests that human rights and fundamental freedoms are grounded and enshrined in the


principles of Community law? It is on that basis that we assert that the charter will be justiciable. If the Minister is mistaken, will he resign?

Mr. Vaz: Opposition Members call for resignations as often as they call for the veto to be used. I confirm that I like article 6.2, because it is in the Maastricht treaty, which the shadow Foreign Secretary signed. It is nothing new. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham was not present at the conclave on Sunday night, but he does not represent a country. We took a decision then that no reference in the text would be made to article 6.2. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that article 6.2 will not be mentioned in the text of the declaration.
I shall now move on to the other aspects of Nice. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) raised some serious points about qualified majority voting. I am sorry to remind the House that the gentleman who signed up for 30 extra additions to qualified majority voting under the Maastricht treaty was the right hon. Member for Horsham. Thirty times did he agree to do so. We have heard of people repenting after three occasions, but he did it 30 times, and he did it proudly. He did it without even a referendum, which the hon. Member for Stone asked for. The right hon. Gentleman signed up to that because he believed that it was in the national interest.
We will do as we said in our White Paper and look at qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that it will simply be the European Court. We have made it clear that on those red-line areas we are not prepared to accept qualified majority voting. Of course, our negotiators have studied qualified majority voting very carefully. I pay tribute to Sir Stephen Wall, who has been our chief negotiator on these matters. The decisions that we make in a few days will be based on what is in our interests, in exactly the same way that the right hon. Gentleman—St. Francis of Maastricht—decided to do when he signed up to the Maastricht treaty. What he did on those 30 occasions, plus the 12 during the passage of the Single European Act, was designed to do things that were in Britain's interests.
We come now to two final items that will be discussed at Nice. One is the size of the Commission. Of course it is important that the Commission is efficient, transparent and accountable. It is extremely important that we realise what the Government's agenda is in Europe. It is to create a Europe that is capable of being reformed. We are therefore pro-Europe but also pro-reform. Of course we need to reform the Commission because when the applicant countries come in—13 have applied to join in Helsinki, and under our presidency—the Commission should act efficiently. That is why we are prepared to give up our second Commissioner, provided that there is a substantial reweighting of votes on the European Council.
We will get a better deal for this country on the extension of votes on the European Council than the right hon. Member for Horsham or any other Government ever managed to achieve before we came to power. We believe, exactly as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said, that it is important to redress the balance. We have lost influence as a result of votes over the past 20 years, and it is extremely important to ensure that the balance is redressed. So we will come out with more votes because we believe that that is important.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he understand that if he gives away the right to enhanced co-operation to France and Germany and the other leading continental powers, Britain loses her main opportunity to get something that we want in perpetuity? What will he demand in return for giving away that massive power?

Mr. Vaz: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, who is very passionate about this issue and speaks in all these debates. When our negotiators are out there, fighting for Britain, we will not give things away without ensuring that we get the best possible deal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did the same on the few occasions when he went to European Council meetings as Secretary of State and as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. When he went there, he wanted to make sure that he got the best possible deal. That is exactly what the Prime Minister and other Ministers do.
It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman mentions enhanced co-operation. The right hon. Member for Horsham, so eager to issue his press releases before he realises what decisions have been taken—I am sure that when we arrive at Nice, we will find the "Francis Maude press releases", condemning everything that the Government have done—will know that a year ago he was calling for more flexibility.
We have said that we will accept enhanced co-operation provided that it does not create a two-speed Europe, exactly as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. We will not accept it if it creates a situation in which some applicants are not moving as fast as we are. We will not create a two-speed Europe; we want to ensure that the single market is not undermined.

Mr. Cash: What about the emergency brake?

Mr. Vaz: That will remain our position on the emergency brake, the veto and all other issues. The Government are positively engaged in Europe. We have to be right there at the centre, making those decisions and at Nice, we will make sure that our agenda is accepted.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

Second-hand Goods

7 pm

Mr. Derek Wyatt: The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The petition of the residents of the county of Kent and of Medway
Declares that legislation aimed at regulating the sale of second hand goods should be created in a national scheme and preceded by full and proper consultation of all those likely to be affected.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords].
And the Petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Abuse Investigations (NHS)

motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

7 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not my habit to seek Adjournment debates, but I have come to the conclusion that this is the only way to put on record my disappointment, concern and anger at the manner in which a complaint about alleged serious malpractice in the health service has been dealt with. If it is in any way typical, it is not in the interests of public services or of the people; it is also an insult to parliamentary democracy and the safeguards that are meant to stem from it.
In my constituency, there is a successful and distinguished firm called Rebus—a provider of IT services. Among the applications that they offer is Medirisk, a risk management software tool, which is used in the NHS. Rebus is obviously competitive, and during the summer of 1999 it was most concerned to hear that a person—whose name I have provided to the Minister of State, Department of Health—had secured a position as controls assurance project manager within the NHS executive, although he was a director of a firm producing an application that was a direct competitor to Medirisk. Rebus was even more concerned to learn not only that he was a director, but that he actually owned a third of the share capital.
That worry and concern became alarm, however, when it was reported to Rebus that the person to whom I have referred was actually promoting the sales of his company's products and that he had allegedly given some officials the message that his firm's products were the only ones that should be purchased.
Rebus also received a report from a lady whose initials are KM—I have passed her name to the Minister—who is a respected clinical risk adviser and also a local councillor in Northampton. She stated that, at a conference held at the Good Hope hospital NHS trust, the project manager had described his project as the preferred choice of the NHS. As she was so concerned about the situation, she took the trouble to contact Rebus with that information.
Rebus obviously felt that something was seriously wrong and so made a complaint to the director of finance and performance of the NHS. He took more than a month to reply, but when he did so, he indicated that Rebus had obviously misunderstood the situation. He explained that in fact two products were produced by the firm. One, which had been financed by the NHS, was concerned with modules for auditing compliance with health and safety legislation, but it had the same name as the risk management product. He said that clearly the manager had been referring to one rather than the other. Of course, letters can be misquoted, but I have all the correspondence and I shall be glad to show it to the Minister so that he can read it himself. I hope that he will study it.
The basic point, however, was that although there had been an indication that someone had heard and seen an alleged abuse, no one asked to see the lady who had made the complaint—to make contact with her to obtain further information. The answer was simply that it was a load of rubbish.
After that delayed letter, Rebus started receiving other reports of alleged abuses. For example, a hospital in Liverpool had apparently been instructed by the regional office of the NHS executive to purchase a product to which I will simply refer as product S. Another report related to a potential client within the health service who had phoned the project manager—the chap who held the shares—to ask his advice on the purchase of a risk management system. The answer—which was noted carefully, word for word—was that there was no way the NHS executive would continue with any product other than S, given the amount of money that had been invested in it.
Rebus's view was certainly that the possible purchasers in the NHS had gained the impression that product S was the preferred choice of the NHS, because of which Rebus found that, although several hundred people were interested in buying the systems, only five got them. The rest were worried, concerned and confused. Never in the firm's history had it received so many inquiries but so few purchases.
Reports of apparent abuse continued to be received, so the firm decided to approach its local Member of Parliament. This is the point that I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider. I was rather horrified by the reports, so when the firm sent me a formal letter, dated 1 February, I wrote to the Secretary of State on 3 February. As the points at issue were so clear and precise, and as I had provided in the correspondence the name of one of the people who had heard the abuses, I presumed that they would be dealt with speedily.
Although the letter was sent on 3 February, two months passed and I heard nothing. I phoned the Minister's office to ask what was happening. Nothing happened, so I sent a reminder letter, dated 1 June, to the Secretary of State, but still I received no reply. I genuinely did not know how to motivate the Minister to take the issue seriously, so I tabled a parliamentary question, marked W—a procedure that was designed to stop Ministers delaying answers.
The Minister will be well aware that I tabled the question for answer on 28 June—quite a long time ago—so it should have been replied to on that date. I simply asked the Secretary of State when he would reply to my letter about the serious alleged abuses in the health service, but no reply came. I received no reply the following week; nor the following month. You may be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not yet received a reply. I inquired by phone again today, and the Table Office confirmed that there is still no reply.
The whole business began to make me suspicious. Was it simply a case of an arrogant Minister who did not care about serious allegations relating to the health service, or did he not want his name to be associated with what was happening? I made inquiries about the S company. It emerged that it was not really a giant, but a small company. In 1998, there had been a loss of £4,000 on a very limited turnover and, in 1999, a profit of £73.
I will not make public my suspicions, but I think that the Minister will know what I am talking about. Whatever the circumstances, I knew that the whole episode was an insult to democracy. As I had tried tabling questions, speaking to the Ministers and sending letters, I decided that the only thing to do was to write to the Prime Minister and to Madam Speaker. On 23 August, I sent a long letter to the Prime Minister and another to Madam Speaker.
The Prime Minister's assistant, Jan Taylor, who is obviously a polite lady, wrote back to me on 29 August. On behalf of the Prime Minister, she said:
I will ensure that a reply is sent to you as soon as possible.
However, despite that assurance from No. 10, August passed and so did September. I decided to do things differently. Perhaps the Prime Minister was not as powerful as I had thought, so I decided to do something else—I would not dare tell the House what it was. The result was that, at long last, I received a reply dated 2 October in answer to my question of 3 February. The Minister had obviously been working hard.
The Minister will be aware that Mr. Reeves said that the witness to whom I referred was not relevant and misunderstood the situation. The Minister answered that the witness had not been there, or that no one could remember whether she was there. No one could recall having seen her, although the hospital invited her to go along and although she has been recognised by many people who were there. I have a list of people who had met her there, but the Minister said that she was not there, so there was no point in pursuing the case. He also said that he was sure that Mr. E had not abused his position.
I responded immediately to the Minister with a letter saying that KM had been present at the invitation of the risk manager at the hospital, and I gave the Minister a detailed description of the most recent case of abuse, which was much worse than the others. Of course Rebus was angry, and it sent its own letter. We do not have replies yet, and we may have to wait for another nine months or a year.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to put these events on record and all the points that I have made can be confirmed by documents, letters and statements. I now wish to ask the Minister five simple questions. First, does he consider that Ministers and officials have dealt with the complaints adequately? Is the case not an affront to the democratic system?
Secondly, does the Minister think it right to arrange for an official in his Department to speak to the many witnesses who are willing to spell out clearly what they regard as a very serious abuse? I can give him the names and the telephone numbers of those who are prepared to do that.
Thirdly, in light of the issues that have been raised, is it not important that the Minister should say on behalf of the NHS that, subject only to the wishes of their patients and communities, hospitals are entirely free to purchase whatever risk management equipment they wish? If he says that they are free to do that and are not guided by what is regarded as the favourite of the NHS, that will make a difference.
Fourthly, does it not genuinely worry the Minister, as a democrat, that when the controls assurance project was launched in November 1999 at the London Arena, only one company—the S company—had an exhibition stand even though the NHS executive was well aware of the conflict of interest? Was that right?
Finally, will the Minister consider the many complaints of abuse that have been made? To give just one more example of an information leak, it is a fact that, when the S company advertised at the London Arena, a version of

its product had been built to contain all the controls assurance standards. Those standards were not released to NHS managers until after the event. Will he try to find out how this miraculous firm was able to produce something with all the specific standards that had not even been published, and was able to have the product on display at a public exhibition? Access to privileged information is valuable, so if this is not an important issue, what is?
The issues that I have raised are serious. I have not tried to discuss them from a political perspective; I simply say that what happened was wrong. Something should happen and someone should do something. If nothing is done, that will be an insult to democracy, fairness and to all the things that the Minister and I embarked on when we came into politics. I hope that he will think about the issues and reassure us.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on securing the debate. He may have raised one or two issues that are new to me and that I will need to follow up, but I will answer all his points to the best of my ability.
It took a long time for the hon. Gentleman to receive a reply; it was sent at the beginning of October. I spoke to him in the Corridor during the summer, so he will accept that I apologised for the delay. I said that it had happened because the issues that he had raised were serious and I wanted to assure myself that they had been properly investigated before I signed a letter to him. If there has been an oversight in the Department about the parliamentary question that he tabled, I apologise unreservedly. He deserved an answer to that in addition to the lengthy letter that I sent him.
By way of background, the national health service suffered from high-level failures in corporate governance in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. There were fundamental cultural problems in the failures of the Wessex and West Midlands regional health authorities, so we took a series of measures to improve corporate governance, enhance risk management and control in the NHS, and counter fraud. As a result, there has been an unbroken sequence of five years of unqualified accounts.
In 1994, the NHS corporate governance taskforce recommended a set of measures to improve the accountability of NHS boards, in line with the 1992 Cadbury recommendations on financial aspects of corporate governance. That included the adoption of three governance codes by all NHS health authorities and trusts: codes of conduct, accountability and openness. To clarify further the responsibilities of NHS bodies, chief executive officers of NHS boards were formally designated accountable officers from 1995. They are accountable through the NHS executive to Parliament for resources and probity. In the mid-1990s, remuneration and terms of service committees were established to ensure that the employment contracts of board members are fair and reasonable.
The final piece of corporate governance is controls assurance. That process is designed to provide evidence that NHS organisations are doing their reasonable best to manage themselves so as to meet their objectives and protect patients, staff, the public and other stakeholders


against all kinds of risk. It is a basis on which chief executives as accountable officers must discharge their responsibilities. Similarly, it supports the accounting officer in the provision of assurances to Parliament and the public.
The Department is in the process of designing a complete and integrated set of controls assurance standards which, taken together, will clarify and make measurable compliance with laws and regulations covering all areas of risk. The assurance process culminates in a statement by NHS boards that an effective system of control is in place and working properly to ensure that risk and controls to mitigate it are continuously assessed and prioritised action is taken. The aim is to provide one clear set of standards covering financial, organisational and clinical systems. The controls system is complex, but we are now in a position to describe it fully and to consider how best to provide tools for controls assurance—the central topic of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Several months ago, the hon. Gentleman raised concerns about how software to support controls assurance in the NHS would be chosen. A constituent employed by Rebus suggested that there might be a conflict of interest associated with a member of the controls assurance team, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, given that that person had shares in one company that supplies risk management software to the NHS. The constituent also made allegations of impropriety on the part of the member of the team. I assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituent that action has been taken to ensure that the gentleman's appointment has not led to a conflict of interest, and the recent allegation of inappropriate behaviour has been fully investigated.
The hon. Gentleman gave a couple of examples of the cases that he has raised. He referred to one hospital in Liverpool, which I do not believe has been raised with us previously. I shall therefore need to follow up that point. He also referred to a presentation at the Good Hope hospital in Birmingham. It was suggested that a lady, to whom he referred by the initials KM, had attended that presentation. She subsequently reported inappropriate behaviour by a member of the controls assurance team. When I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 2 October, I said that there was no recollection of anyone of that name being present at the meeting. That was the result of the investigation that I instituted.
We then received—it has been repeated in the debate—a further allegation that that person had attended the meeting and was well known to people there. When we received that allegation from the hon. Gentleman's constituent a few weeks ago, I asked my officials to go back to Good Hope hospital. I have here a letter from the director of nursing, which states:
I am the Executive lead for risk management and controls assurance at Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust.
The letter goes on to state that she invited various people to speak at the meeting. It said that the presentation was targeted at an audience of key internal people and, with the exception of the two speakers, no other external people were invited to the meeting. The director of nursing said that she had absolutely no recollection of someone with the initials KM attending the meeting. Her letter continued:
In fact, I have never heard of this person and have certainly never invited her to the Trust. In addition, at the time of the presentation we did not actually have a Risk Manager in post.

It is alleged that a risk manager who did not exist invited somebody to a meeting. The person who organised the meeting and made the invitations told my officials in writing that she did not invite the person concerned and had never heard of them. From that incident the hon. Gentleman will understand that investigating the matters that he has raised, which I entirely accept are serious allegations, is not as straightforward as has been suggested.
It was further alleged, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that the individual at the centre of the debate had used his position to suggest that the product sold by the company with which he was associated was the only one that was appropriate for the NHS. We have of course contacted the person who is alleged to have heard the comments and to have reported them to the hon. Gentleman. He wrote to my officials to say that he had contacted the individual about whom we are talking to inquire about databases for controls assurance and incident reporting.
The person said that he had asked the individual about the software that has been mentioned and
whether or not the Trust should move in that direction.
The gentleman about whom the complaint has been made advised that the software
was used in over 150 trusts and had been developed by the NHS with investment of approximately £im. Its future was in doubt as the NHSE was looking at other databases.
The letter to my official continued:
You shared with me the paragraph—
in the hon. Gentleman's constituent's letter—
which had led to your phone call. What he has written does not accurately reflect the manner in which the information was presented … It misrepresents what I told
the hon. Gentleman's constituent. He went on to say:
I also had the conversation with him in February and not two weeks ago.
We have spent a lot of time investigating these complex issues. The comments that people have made do not match the records that others have given me. I am in no way criticising the hon. Gentleman for raising these concerns. I know him well enough to know that he does so with complete integrity and in absolute good faith. I hope that he will accept that I have made strenuous efforts to get to the bottom of the allegations.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister make it clear that hospitals are entirely free to purchase whatever risk management equipment they think appropriate, subject only to the interests of their patients and the community?

Mr. Denham: As I will make clear—this is an important aspect of the issue—a process is under way to identify suitable software for that application in the NHS. It is important for the background of the discussion and the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents that I am able to set out that exact process.
I shall deal first with the appointment of the member of the controls assurance team who has been under discussion tonight. That was not a ministerial appointment, but the individual was appointed under open competition and on condition that he resigned his directorship of the company with which he is associated. He did that before taking up his post on 1 October 1999.
I have sought advice on that appointment, and I have not been given any advice that proper practice was not followed in line with the civil service rules of the time.
The gentleman concerned has agreed to sign, in respect of his shareholding, a Nolan-type register of interests that will be introduced by the Department of Health for all employees in the near future. In addition, because of the concerns raised by the allegations, the gentleman has been formally made aware of the concern arising from his shareholding and advised that he must be extremely careful lest his actions lead to any misunderstanding of his position. I acknowledge that there is scope for confusion in distinguishing between the software, which is Crown copyright, and the limited company of the same name in which he has shares.
The man in question was originally an academic. The higher education institution at which he worked developed an IT quality, safety and risk management software product for the NHS. The NHS had contributed about £584,000. The product was distributed free of charge to the NHS. Subsequently, 160 NHS organisations have paid a licence fee of £1,000 per annum to receive updates and new releases.
In March 1996, the higher education institution established a spin-out company with a former employee of the NHS Scotland management executive, the gentleman whom we have been discussing and Strathclyde university as its three shareholders. The Scottish Office licensed the software to the higher education institution which, in turn, sub-licensed it to the company. The original software is Crown copyright, so it may be possible for the NHS to take the product in-house and develop it, or sell it to another company to further develop the software.
Given that background, it was sensible for the NHS executive to explore whether the software, with further development, would be a suitable system to provide support to the NHS in meeting the requirements of controls assurance. Devon and Cornwall NHS Audit Confederation was asked to carry out such a review in 1998. A number of recommendations were made in the report outlining how the software would need to be developed if it were to be suitable for all NHS trusts and health authorities to meet the needs of controls assurance.
The gentleman we are talking about was on secondment to the NHS executive at this time and concern was expressed in the report about a potential conflict of interest. In April 1999, Liverpool John Moores university was approached to examine three issues relating to the systemisation of controls assurance in the NHS. The consultants were asked to look at the possibility of a conflict of interest, to evaluate systems currently available and in use within the NHS which could be adapted or adopted for controls assurance in the NHS, and to provide an outline evaluation of those software packages that are currently available in the market which may have the potential to meet NHS controls assurance requirements.
The report recommended, rightly, that to resolve any conflict of interest the individual we are discussing should be excluded from any and all work associated with the decision-making process relating to the software solution for controls assurance. The overall conclusion was that there were several products that satisfied NHS requirements. The consultants highlighted the fact that the only way fully to test the market would be to invite expressions of interest to tender against an outline specification—in short, to place an advertisement.
A review of software systems commenced in July 1999, carried out independently by the chief executive of NHS Estates. In September 1999, an advertisement was placed in the Official Journal of the European Community, to which 15 suppliers responded. Six were shortlisted based on the information received from the companies. The hon. Gentleman's constituent was not one of those six and was informed of the decision in a letter dated 10 January 2000. However, the result of the shortlist was that none of the six was deemed suitable for recommendation to the NHS, because all of the software packages required further development to meet the needs of the NHS.
Further work having been deemed necessary, an independent review was carried out in consultation with the NHS. The review was completed a few months ago. It recommended that, in the light of the changes that have taken place, a procurement process should commence with an outline business case and the placement of a further OJEC advertisement. The key point is that such a process will ensure that all suppliers, including the hon. Gentleman's constituent, have an opportunity to be considered. I do not believe that in the matter of the supply of controls assurance software to the NHS the hon. Gentleman's constituent has been disadvantaged.
A user group has been established to ensure that the needs of the NHS are fully explored and to assist in developing a detailed specification for the software. The controls assurance support unit at Keele university is leading the work. That thorough process involving independent organisations and users from the NHS will enable the hon. Gentleman to assure his constituent that a conflict of interest has been avoided. He will also have a further opportunity to demonstrate the value of his firm's software.
My response has been rather detailed, but the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are of great importance. I acknowledge that the examination of the issues has been complex, but I believe that it has been carried out properly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now feel able to give the proper assurances to his constituent and that he will feel certain that every necessary step has been taken to avoid a conflict of interest. I take the matters involved very seriously.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [22 November.]

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve midnight.